Working on a Riff

Spare paragraphs, written but unused:

The refugee issue is clear enough. We should recognize that each
sovereign nation has responsibility for its borders and can limit
immigration as it sees fit. Israel does not and will not recognize
a right for any significant number of refugees, from 1948 or any
other point in its history, to return. This is so ingrained there
is no point even discussing it. As early as 1913, Zionist leader
Arthur Ruppin set out the goal of creating a Jewish majority in
Palestine. This was mostly to be accomplished through immigration,
but driving native Palestinians out would also work. In 1936, the
first British proposal for partitioning Palestine called for forced
transfer, which would have moved some Jews out of Arab territories,
and many more Arabs out of Jewish sections. Ben Gurion applauded
the transfer proposal. The 1947 UN partition proposal didn't specify
transfer, but when war broke out, Israel's military forces moved
quickly both the expand the proposed borders and to drive Arabs out
of Israeli territory. During the 1947-50 war, more than 700,000
Palestinians left their homes and were locked out of their country.
Before the war, Palestine was 33% Jewish; after the war, Israel was
80% Jewish.

There is a lot more one can say about the "transfer" (or "ethnic
cleansing") of Israel, but it is impossible to overstate how critical
it was for Israel's success, or how much impact it has had on later
history. The refugees persevered as symbolic pawns of the conflict.
Even today, several generations later still live in the squalor of
temporary camps to preserve the notion that some day the hostilities
will end and they can go home -- a standard which gives Israel every
reason to never end the conflict. We need to find a way to end the
conflict without returning the refugees, either to Israel (which has
steadfastly refused them) or to any new Palestinian state (which won't
have the space or resources to absorb them). To accomplish that, we
need a concerted international effort to resettle the refugees all
over the diaspora. The key point here is that each refugee should be
able to find a new home, where they are free and able to enjoy full
rights of citizenship. And as the refugees are settled, as they choose
and are accepted by countries, the UN refugee support mechanism can
be dissolved.

The magic ingredient here is money, combined with diplomacy. In
theory, refugees have always been entitled to some sort of compensation,
but most Palestinians have refused any such thing in order to maintain
their status as refugees, as victims of Israel's ethnic cleansing,
. . .

Budrus

Had a showing of Budrus at the Peace Center tonight. In the
discussion after the show, one person made an unseemly comment, and
someone who wasn't there but had heard about it raised the matter on
a mailing list, and well, I responded (minus the specifics about who
said what):

The authors of The One State Condition make a distinction
between potential violence (threats, intimidation, what could happen
if you crossed the wrong person) and eruptive violence (the breakouts
of shooting and bombing, and I'd count bulldozers here), and show how
Israel's occupation regime uses both (and indeed little else) to
control Palestinians. The film shows this: the IDF attempts to force
through a bureaucratic decision to run the wall through a Palestinian
village instead of around it; when demonstrators object, the IDF
constantly reminds them of the violence they can inflict, often trying
to goad the demonstrators into letting them escalate the violence. The
demonstrator's use of women, international witnesses, Israeli peace
activists, and general non-violence are all designed to inhibit the
IDF from escalating, but their success is mixed -- we see an awful lot
of violence erupting from the IDF, especially gas and stun grenades,
but also an awful lot of shooting (whether rubber bullets or "live"
ammunition is hard to gauge). (We don't see other aspects of Israel's
arsenal, like tanks, artillery, F-15s, or nuclear weapons, but rest
assured they are part of the "potential violence" package.)

Both Budrus and Five Broken Cameras focus almost
exclusively on what IDF intimidation and violence looks like from the
receiving side, and both within the context of [very largely]
non-violent protests against Israel's "security fence" project, which
aside from adding to Israel's arsenal of potential violence is most
immediately felt as an effort to grab land and further cripple the
Palestinian economy (e.g., by destroying olive trees). Neither film
helps you understand "big picture" strategy, and neither offers any
real insight into Israeli politics or psychology -- which are, I
think, more interesting questions. But what they do show -- e.g.,
that all the IDF has to do to justify shooting demonstrators is to
declare the space they're in a "closed military zone" -- should
suffice to raise serious questions.

Rhapsody Streamnotes (May 2013)

A Downloader's Diary (30): May 2013

This is the 30th installment, (almost) monthly since August 2010,
totalling 740 albums. All columns are indexed and archived
here. You can follow A Downloader's
Diary on
Facebook, and on
Twitter.

Odds and Ends

Wrote this to Toyota, trying to get some help for a car repair:

I have a broken plastic door on the small compartment in the middle
of the dashboard (2006 Corolla XRS). The replacement part (55521C)
does not come with the spring wires needed to mount it, and in any
case probably cannot be installed without removing the surrounding
assembly (55411G). A blow-up illustration I got from the parts dealer
shows this assembly is held in by clips on four corners, but it isn't
clear how to access those clips or how to undo them. In particular, is
it necessary to remove other parts of the dashboard to access them,
and if so, how? The bezel around the gear shift (car has 6-speed
manual transmission) seems like one possibility. Would appreciate any
tips you can provide. Thanks.

Kym Wilson at Toyota wrote back:

Dear Mr. Hull,

We apologize for your concern with the center console handle in
your 2006 Corolla.

We partner with our dealers to assist us as they are our technical
experts. To address your inquiry, we recommend you contact Jessica
Therrell, who is the Customer Relations Manager of record at Eddy's
Toyota Of Wichita. Ms. Therrell can be reached by calling (316)
652-2222.

We have documented your email at our National Headquarters under
file #1305290871. If we can be of further assistance, please contact
us.

After trying to talk to Therrell, I replied:

This is no help. I spoke to Ms. Therrell three times today. Each
time she forwarded me to a phone that didn't answer. When I did
finally reach a person I was told that all they could do would be to
schedule me for service. This repair isn't worth a $200 service
call. It's barely worth the $25 part (what you charge for a cheap,
fragile plastic door). All I was hoping for was that you would point
me to a manual where you detail how to disassemble the center
dashboard facade, but evidently your manuals aren't online. As it
happens, I was able to poke around and pop the top two clips open, so
I've freed the top of the assembly, but it's still stuck tight on the
bottom. I've yet to find any way to pop the ashtray out. (By the way,
I don't recall ever having a car where the user couldn't remove the
ashtray, but then I don't recall any others just made out of plastic.)
I'm just trying to be very careful to avoid making it worse. But it
should be an easy repair once the assembly is free enough so I can
line up the spring clips.

By the way, I'm assuming my car is out of warranty. We've had the
car for 6-7 years, but it barely has 50,000 miles. As I recall, Toyota
has the shortest warranty in the industry. I thought you had a
reputation for quality, and indeed I have no mechanical complaints.
But this isn't the first piece of cosmetic plastic I've repaired.

Replaced dining room dimmer with Lutron DIVA C-L CFL/LED Dimmer
(DVCL-153P-WH). Capped the red/white wire used for 3-way switches.
The old dimmer only worked with incandescents and halogens, so
failed as soon as we started replacing the 50W halogen lamps in
the overhead lighting with MR-15 LEDs (even though the latter
were advertised as "dimmable").

Music Week/Jazz Prospecting

Music: Current count 21466 [21440] rated (+26), 630 [629] unrated (+1).
Average music week. Spent a lot of time with Carrier and Rempis, which
in the end made a difference -- a break I don't cut everyone, but then
not everyone has earned it.

Memorial Day today. Reading through the paper I'm deluged with pieces
on dead soldiers. Boeing runs a full-page ad with a flag at half-staff
and a list of iconic battles, starting with Normandy and Midway (in the
wrong chronological order) and ending with Fallujah, the Iraq city Bush
had destroyed in a fit of pique (postponed until after the election when
he was beyond embarrassment). The editorial page advised us to check out
Veterans Park down on Veterans Way, home of 17 war memorials (with more
built nearly every year -- there was another article proposing a new one
to honor Indian soldiers). Just once I wish someone would applaud real
American heroes, like the Mennonites and Quakers, and for that matter
God-ignoring socialists, who opposed all those wars. The Boeing ad listed
Khe San, but a more poignant reminder of the Vietnam War would have been
Kent State.

Updated the Jazz Prospecting
archive for
May. Monthly Jazz Prospecting
totals for the last four months are { 52, 55, 55, 53 }. Those are all
close to average months, but it is rare to string them together so
consistently: in 2012 I varied from 29 to 90 per month, and only did
33 in January 2013. The average for 16 months is 51.375 (total 822).
At some point I want to add the Rhapsody albums into the archive --
I have more than 10 jazz albums in this month's Rhapsody Streamnotes
file. That will run later this week, along with A Downloader's Diary.

Black Host: Life in the Sugar Candle Mines (2013,
Northern Spy): Drummer Gerald Cleaver gets first listing on the
cover, has all the song credits except one joint improv and one
piece by Bartok. The other names are draws: Darius Jones (alto
sax), Cooper-Moore (piano, synth), Brandon Seabrook (guitar), and
Pascal Niggenkemper (bass). Jones is a powerhouse who likes to get
plug ugly (as on his Little Women albums) yet can make something
sublime out of the chaos (see his own albums, although I still
can't vouch for Book of Mae'bul), although the most striking
solos are the guitarist's.
B+(***)

Will Calhoun: Life in This World (2012 [2013], Motéma):
Drummer, best known for playing in the rock/metal group Living Colour,
although he's been gravitating toward jazz for a while now. Big group
here, including Donald Harrison (sax), Wallace Roney (trumpet), Marc
Cary (piano), Ron Carter and Charmett Moffett (bass), and some Africans
(best known is Cheick Tidiane Seck). Four Calhoun originals, plus some
pieces from the band, plus Monk, Coltrane, Shorter, Cole Porter, etc.
Runs a bit light and slick.
B

François Carrier/Michel Lambert/John Edwards/Steve Beresford:
Overground to the Vortex (2011 [2013], Not Two): Alto
sax, drums, bass, piano; Carrier and Lambert from Montreal, have
played together regularly since the 1990s; the others from England,
where this was recorded. Four long pieces, group credits (although
Beresford is only listed on the last two -- no credits given, but
the latter half is where the piano is most evident). Carrier is
superb, as usual: always searching, often finding.
A-

Hamilton de Holanda & André Mehmari: Gismonti Pascoal:
The Music of Egberto and Hermeto (2009-10 [2013], Adventure
Music): Brazilians, 10-string mandolin and piano, respectively --
De Holanda has a substantial discography, but this is the first I've
seen from Mehmari -- playing Brazilian legends, guitarist Egberto
Gismonti and pop star Hermeto Pascoal, who each make a cameo (the
latter on Fender Rhodes). The piano dominates, and takes some chances.
B+(**)

Christian McBride & Inside Straight: People Music
(2013, Mack Avenue): Bassist, mainstream guy with 14 albums since 1994
making him one of the best-known players around. Splits piano-drums
duties, adding Steve Wilson (alto sax, one cut soprano) and Warren
Wolf (vibes). Wolf, Wilson, and the two pianist contribute half of
the songs (4 of 8), the rest McBride. Wilson plays a light, airy sax,
and the vibes are all froth on top of the bassist's trademark swing.
B+(**)

Ruth Wilhelmine Meyer/Helge Lien: Memnon (2012 [2013],
Ozella): Subtitled "Sound Portrait of Ibsen Characters, done sparsely
with an arch-soprano voice and piano accompaniment. Dark and moody, of
course -- an evident labor of love, just one with little appeal to me,
though better when the piano breaks free, or when the voice sinks deep
into the murk.
B

The Rempis Percussion Quartet: Phalanx (2012 [2013],
Aerophonic, 2CD): Dave Rempis, first appeared in the Vandermark 5 on alto
sax but is equally adept at tenor and soprano; one of the most impressive
saxophonists to appear in the last decade. His main vehicle over the
past five years has been this quartet, with two drummers (Frank Rosaly
and Tim Daisy) and bassist Ingebrigt Håker Flaten. I've only heard the
previous records on Rhapsody or Bandcamp -- Flaten has a tremendous
selection of his work on the latter -- and the one-two play regimen
has invariably left them just shy of my A-lists, which is where this
live double -- 53 minutes in Milwaukee and 75 in Antwerp -- started.
Repeated play pushed it over the line, smoothing over the rough spots,
easing me down during the lulls, certain that something exciting is
just around the corner.
A-

By the way, the Von Freeman LP is a record I rated A- when it
originally came out.

Expert Comments

Personal plug:

Listening? Been working this holiday, playing jazz singers: five of
them today, not a bad one in the bunch (to my surprise), still none
I'd seriously recommend buying. Jazz Prospecting, up now, has some
avant-sax, something more to my taste.

Weekend Roundup

Start with the proposition that there is a legitimate left-right divide
in U.S. politics, built around a real issue: how extensive should be make
our social safety net, and (hence) how much do we need to raise in taxes?
This is ultimately a values issue, with no right answer.

There are, however, a lot of largely empirical questions whose answers
need not, in principle, be associated with one's position on this left-right
divide but, in practice, are. A partial list:

The existence of anthropogenic climate change

The effects of fiscal stimulus/austerity

The effects of monetary expansion, and the risks of inflation

The revenue effects of tax cuts

The workability of universal health care

I've deliberately chosen a list here where the evidence is, in each
case, pretty much overwhelming. There is a real scientific consensus on
1; the evidence of the past few years has been very strong on 2 and 3;
there are no serious studies supporting the view that we're on the wrong
side of the Laffer curve; one form or another of UHC operates all across
the advanced world, with lower costs than the US system.

So? You could, as I said, take the "liberal" position on each of these
issues while still being conservative in the sense that you want a smaller
government. But what the "reformish" conservatives Ryan Cooper lists do,
in almost all cases, is either (a) to follow the party line on these
issues or (b) to hint at some flexibility -- and thereby cultivate an
image of being open-minded -- as long as the issues don't get close to
an actual policy decision, but to always find a way to support the
Republican position whenever it actually matters.

I think what's happening on these five issues is that Republicans
have wound up denying the science because they don't like the usual
policies liberals propose to deal with these problems, so instead of
thinking up alternatives that they find more palatable they deny
everything. One thing that has pushed Republicans into a corner here
is that after some conservative counterproposals have been accepted
by liberals, figuring anything is better than no solution, they've
had to retrench. Examples include cap-and-trade for managing carbon
emissions, and "Romneycare/Obamacare" to provide universal health
care coverage while preserving insurance industry profits. One thing
this shows is that the conservative think tank proposals were often
meant to be red herrings.

The striking thing here isn't just that conservative denialism has
been elevated to a matter of faith. It's their general obliviousness
to problems and their effects -- and not just on the poor, who they
make a point of hating, or on the middle class, whoever they are, but
even on the rich, and more generally on business people they claim to
support. For instance, they defend a health care industry that is set
up to increasingly extort ever larger shares of the economy, putting
every other industry at a competitive disadvantage. They oppose any
effort to regulate consumer fraud by the banking industry, even though
a large slice of those "consumers" are really investors. They oppose
any efforts to limit fossil fuel depletion, even though the effect of
that depletion is not only more pollution and climate change, it's
also dramatically higher energy prices for everyone. They oppose any
increase in taxes (well, except for regressive sales taxes) even when
that means degradation of essential infrastructure (which business
needs more than anyone), of the school system (which business depends
on to train workers), and even police and fire (which are especially
important government services for property owners).

Jamie Malanowski: I Stand With Rosen: Evidently James Rosen, of
Fox News, "was named by the Justice Department as a possible criminal
'co-conspirator' for his alleged role in publishing sensitive security
information." Malanowski regards him as "a meticulous reporter, a person
of good judgment, the author of a deeply researched biography of John
Mitchell that has convinced me that Nixon's Attorney General got a bum
rap in Watergate," etc. So he doesn't sound like all that sympathetic
a person to me, but he somehow got caught up in Obama's (or Holder's)
anti-leak obsession, and when it comes to government secrets, my position
is that we owe Bradley Manning a Medal of Honor. Malanowski writes:

The Justice Department can go to hell. James is getting legally muscled
because the government wants to stop leakers, and thinks the best way to
stop leakers is to criminalize the people who report the leaks, that is,
reporters. It is shocking that this action is being performed by the Obama
administration; one had such higher expectations of Obama, although no
more. Once again we see that power does corrupt. And this why we need
people like Rosen, because when we have stars in our eyes we are often
blind to the limitations of public officials in whom we have invested
our hopes and aspirations. Our leaders are only human, susceptible to
temptation, and therefore must be watched, watched, watched, by leakers,
and by reporters.

Add this to the AP debacle, and it seems clear that someone in the
administration has gone badly off the rails. Obama needs to dump Eric
Holder, and pronto. I stand with Rosen.

No More Mister Nice Blog: A Grand Unified Theory of Government-Created
Tornadoes and the IRS Scandal: I don't exactly understand the various
conspiracy theories but I just want to point out one more thing: if the
government could create and direct tornados, the perfect place to test
that capability would be Oklahoma City. For one thing, there is a lot of
comparison data which would allow them to contrast this tornado against
previous tornados: this is the third time in the last decade that a
major tornado has followed the same south suburban track. (But I'll
also note that a similar Haysville-to-Andover track has been hit by
numerous tornados around Wichita.) But you also have to figure that
nobody's more gullible about "acts of God" than Oklahomans. Also
there's an economic angle, what with Sen. Coburn complaining about
about all the federal disaster aid corrupting his constituents --
something you'll never hear from Kansas Sen. Roberts (no matter how
much he wants to screw the rest of the world). But the real teaser
is that the government did something like this before: back in the
early 1970s when they wanted to know how supersonic flights across
the US would affect people on the ground they used Oklahoma City
for test subjects. Turned out that even Oklahomans couldn't stand
being barraged with sonic booms, and the SST project was killed.

Within hours of this week's tornado disaster in Oklahoma, I (like many
others) received emails from the president of the United States and my
U.S. senator. With impassioned language, they both claimed to care deeply
about yet another community devastated by a cataclysm, and then said the
best way for America to support private charities.

The work of non-governmental organizations, no doubt, is critical,
and contributing money to them is laudable. But there is something
troubling about government leaders initially implying -- if subtly --
that a non-governmental response is as significant as a governmental
one. And there is something even more disturbing about that message
being sent at a time when budget cuts and sequestrations engineered
by those very governmental leaders threaten to prevent a more effective
response to such disasters in the future. [ . . . ]

After all, while local, state and federal governments are just as
imperfect as corporations and nonprofits, they are -- unlike those
private sector counterparts -- popularly controlled institutions.
That means in a democratic society they should be a primary way we
collectively prepare for and respond to mass emergencies. Indeed,
one of the most basic definitions of the term "civilization" -- as
opposed to anarchy -- is a society that simply recognizes we're all
in this together and consequently builds publicly run institutions
to honor that truism.

Though they refuse to publicly admit it, anti-government conservatives
actually seem to realize this truism when they or their constituents are
personally involved. Oklahoma provides an illustrative example.

In the wake of the tornado, you haven't seen Oklahoma's right-wing
legislators making anti-"Big Government" arguments to deride the fact
that their state receives more federal tax dollars than it contributes.
Instead, you will likely -- and rightly -- see them lobbying to bring
back disaster relief funds from Washington. Likewise, you haven't see
Oklahoma's arch-conservative demagogues like Republican Sen. Tom Coburn
saying government shouldn't help respond to the latest tornado. Instead,
he's now insisting "there's a legitimate role" for government to play.

He's absolutely correct. It just shouldn't take a tragedy for him
or anyone else to realize that this will always be the case, at least
if America is going to remain a truly civilized society.

I think Sirota overrates private charities. I, for one, would much
rather pay taxes and expect that the government will respond appropriately
to each and every disaster that comes along, including ones too obscure
for me to notice, than to have to sort through all of the appeals from
all sorts of more or less legitimate, more or less efficient charities,
even if I wasn't pretty certain that most of them deliver very little
real value. Moreover, Sirota misses some important reasons why it should
be government that provides a backstop for disaster relief. One is that
the federal government can always raise whatever funds it needs, whereas
no private group, state or local government can. Another is that solid
disaster relief halts economic downturns caused by disasters. (For an
example of what happens when the government, mostly due to politics,
isn't up to the task, look at post-Katrina New Orleans.) Economic
stimulus not only put people to work and puts money in their pockets,
it helps make them long-term employable.

Although it's pitched in a kindlier, New York Times-friendly
tone, Douthat's argument is reminiscent of Charles Murray's argument
that the working class needs the discipline and control provided by
working for the boss, lest they come socially unglued altogether.
Good moralistic scold that he is, Douthat sees the decline of work
as part of "the broader turn away from community in America -- from
family breakdown and declining churchgoing to the retreat into the
virtual forms of sport and sex and friendship." It seems more plausible
that it is neoliberal economic conditions themselves -- a scaled back
social safety net, precarious employment, rising, debts and uncertain
incomes -- that has produced whatever increase in anomie and isolation
we experience. The answer to that is not more work but more protection
from the life's unpredictable risks, more income, more equality, more
democracy -- and more time beyond work to take advantage of all of it.

Joseph Massad: The Last of the Semites: Article was originally posted
on Al Jazeera, then pulled down after people like Jeffrey Goldberg charged
it with being anti-semitic. For background, see
Ali Abunimah; also
Glenn Greenwald. I know people who liked this article, probably because
they feel that Zionism is tainted by its early appeal to anti-semitism,
and further tainted by the notable support given to Israel by people who
are still effectively anti-semites, and it isn't often that someone makes
those arguments. But the argument is carried too far: it's oddly amusing
to claim that West Germany's "reparations" to Israel is a consistent
extension of Nazi Germany's "pro-Zionist" policies (mostly the transfer
arrangement that let German Jews flee for Palestine), but it isn't true,
because there was no post-WWII extension of pre-WWII policies attacking
Jews. Massad argues that Europeans and Americans only came to sympathize
with Jews who perished in the Holocaust after they came to see Jews as
"white." One could just as easily argue that while the Holocaust was
fully shocking when it was discovered, the West didn't really own up
to the history until the 1960s, when the civil rights movement and the
anti-colonial movements were first successful. What happened then, and
in subsequent decades, was that anti-semitism in America and Europe all
but dissolved, contrary to the founding perception of Zionism -- that
no matter where Jews went, they would wind up facing murderous hatred,
so the only way they could live in security would be by establishing
their own mightily armed nation. Nonetheless, and unnecessarily as it
turned out, they built just such an armed nation.

Massad is right that the pre-1948 Zionist movement leaders shamelessly
catered to anti-semites. But what happened after 1948 was far stranger
than he imagines. He does have one part of it, in that conventional
Euro-American anti-semites still support Israel, but it's not just
because Israel is open to receive unwanted Jews. It's also that Israel
has come to embody so many traits of the old right: racism, militarism,
colonialism. And Israel has largely succeeded in conflating itself
with world Jewry, for better and worse. Advantages for Israel included
being able to capture "reparations" from Germany and Switzerland for
crimes committed against Jews who had no affiliation with Zionism.
The equation has also allowed Israelis to treat anyone who opposes
their political practices as anti-semitic. While such charges are
often ridiculous, there certainly are people who started anti-Israeli
and became anti-semitic. Indeed, Israel now seems to be trapped in a
circular system of creating enemies to validate their original (and
at least in America and Europe disproven) percept that they have to
build unassaible military might to protect themselves against a
perpetually hostile world. And so they do, becoming ever more
paranoid, and ever more inhumane, in the process.

Jane Mayer: A Word From Our Sponsor: Subtitled: Public television's
attempts to placate David Koch. Koch gets such deference because he is
a big contributor, hence a board member, of WNET, the PBS station in
New York, leading to a form of "self-censorship." One aspect of this is
that it doesn't seem to be Koch attempting to flount his power; rather,
it is WNET's management going out of its way not to offend him. That
sort of deference and obsequiousness is actually more typical of how
the ruling class works.

So in this country we have partnerships, we have S corps, we have LLCs, we
have a series of entities that do not pay corporate income tax. Some of
which are really giant firms, you know Koch Industries is a multibillion
dollar business. So that creates a narrower base because we've literally
got something like 50 percent of the business income in the U.S. is going
to businesses that don't pay any corporate income tax. They point out (in
the report) you could review the boundary between corporate and non-corporate
taxation as a way to broaden the base.

Holden argues, "tax records are confidential. Goolsbee's comments raised
the thought that Goolsbee or the White House had broken that confidentiality
illegally, and reviewed the tax records." That isn't much of a thought. In
fact, about the hardest way possible to identify Koch Industries as outside
the corporate income tax system would be to snoop through their non-existent
corporate tax records. On the other hand, if anyone wanted an example of a
large company that doesn't pay corporate income tax, Koch would be obvious,
as it is by far the largest such company in the US. You don't have to have
a political vendetta against the Koch brothers to know that, although the
fact that they've spent millions of dollars to subvert democracy certainly
has increased their profile.

Goolsbee has a point: if you narrow the tax base by exempting a bunch of
companies from corporate income tax, you either have to tax everyone else
more or give up valuable government services. Last year, the state of Kansas
decided to exempt "small business" income from state income tax, a loophole
that will help a few struggling entrepreneurs but will also exempt the
richest person in the state from having to pay Kansas income tax. That
person's name? William Koch.

Jaron Lanier: The Internet destroyed the middle class: Scott Timberg
interviews Lanier, a computer scientist noted for his work in virtual
reality, also the author of two books critical of computerized culture:
You Are Not a Gadget and Who Owns the Future? I don't know
whether those books are worth taking seriously, but his claim that "the
internet destroyed the middle class" ignores the fact that the internet
became significant at least a decade after conservative political forces
started dismembering the middle class. I won't deny that the internet
has added to the forces pushing wages downward, not least by increasing
competition both on the producer and consumer end. On balance, I'm not
sure that's a bad thing, but doing it at the same time as the safety
net and basic support for education are being shredded could well be
disastrous.

Massad's Connection

Started this, but got too deep and couldn't finish.

I have a few bones to pick with Joseph Massad's
The Last of the Semites. The piece was originally given as a lecture
in Stuttgart, Germany, then published by Al Jazeera English, then
pulled down from the website. (For the background, see
Ali Abunimah.) The piece does one useful thing, which is to remind
us how early Zionists, especially Theodor Herzl, sought out the support
of anti-semites to back their movement, how neatly Zionism dovetailed
into the anti-semitic project of removing Jews from Europe, and how
many early Zionist successes were attributable to anti-semitic support --
Massad specifically mentions the Balfour Declaration and the transfer
agreement with Nazi Germany. Massad also correctly points out that the
basis of Zionism was the belief that anti-semitism was an intractable
problem in Europe, and therefore that Zionists tended to validate the
anti-semitic worldview -- unlike those anti-Zionist Jews who were not
so resigned, who stayed in Europe and worked for tolerance and equal
rights, who sought reform in a more enlightened Europe. Massad points
out that anti-Zionist Jews were disproportionally killed by the Nazis
both because they stayed home and because they opposed the anti-semites
who collaborated with the Zionists.

Where Massad loses it is around 1948 when Israel broke free of its
colonial patron and went on the warpath. Massad theorizes that (white)
Europeans and Americans overcame their anti-semitism as a matter of
racial solidarity, whereas there were many other factors. Europe, in
particular, was appalled by the devastation of two horrible wars in
quick succession, with the Holocaust an inextricable part, the seed
of a solidarity of victimhood. Moreover, many Europeans lost faith in
religion, which reduced the gap between Christian and Jew. The US, of
course, was a different story: Americans got a big kick out of the war,
becoming the most militarist (and religious) nation of the post-WWII
era, and gradually came to love Israel as a kindred spirit, the minor
religious differences to be resolved in the apocalypse.

It's rather amusing to see Massad talk about postwar West German
governments continuing "the pro-Zionist policies of the Nazis," but
there was no continuity in the contexts. Postwar Germany retained
none of the anti-semitic laws or customs of the Nazi era, so while
their support for Zionism continued, their reasoning had changed.
At worst it was lazy thinking that led them to pay "reparations" to
Israel, the culmination of the Zionists' mostly successful efforts
to close off any exit for displaced Jews except to Israel. Besides,
like most "foreign aid" programs, it was mostly a covert subsidy
for exporters.

Woke Up Screaming

Woke up screaming, around noon today: leg cramp, high up my thigh.
My wife ordered me to stand on it. Good advice, but I couldn't find
my way out from under the covers until she pulled them off. Finally
swung my legs over the side, tilted out of bed and steadied myself
leaning against a dresser or something. My mouth was parched, so I
asked for some water. A couple sips dissolved the residue that had
gummed my jaws together. I stumbled to the bathroom. The sharp pain
subsided, leaving a sore knot. Put on some socks and pants, and
ventured downstairs. Good thing we put that new stair rail in.

Not a typical day, but most days have something unpleasant sooner
or later. The dry mouth is an everyday occurrence. Back in the winter
I tried going without antihistamines, but my sinuses only got worse.
Now that the skies are thick with pollen (plus whatever else the recent
onslaught of storms dredged up) I'm doubling up on the over-the-counter
meds. For many years I took a prescription super-dose of Allegra, but
the insurance company dropped that from their formulary so we tried
the loratidine and I eventually started supplementing it with benadryl.
Nothing works. I haven't had a completely clear breath through my nose
since 1986, on a vacation to Cape Cod.

Among the unpleasant tasks scheduled for today is another formulary
problem: Blue Cross/Blue Shield [MA] and/or Express Scripts have decided
that the two anti-cholesterol meds I take now require physician override
paperwork, so my prescription renewal has been held up. (And because
Express Scripts canceled my "auto renewal" on those prescriptions
unawares to me, I'm real close to running out of both.) What they want,
aside from my death, is to force all their "customers" to switch to
generic atorvastatin (Lipitor), and when you look at the price tags of
Crestor and Zetia you can see why. Those drugs are "protected" by patents
which allow their "owners" to charge whatever the market will bear, and
the pharmaceutical companies do just that, ruthlessly. Changing their
formulary rules is one way that bulk buyers like Express Scripts can
fight back against getting gouged, but in doing so they inflict real
costs as well as hassles onto physicians and patients. In my case, to
get the same results I'm currently getting will require recalibrating
my statin dosage upwards -- several visits and tests -- and expose me
to further side effects, not that any of those things matter to the
insurer.

If I could wave a magic wand and fix one thing, it would be to get
rid of patents. There are lots of bad things about patents, like how
they increase the cost of innovation (obviously by involving lawyers),
and how they disincentivize others from improving patented inventions,
but the worst aspect is the "reward" of monopoly rights. Free markets
work precisely because they are free of monopoly. One could come up
with some regulatory scheme to limit patent rents: for drugs, you could
assign royalties for generic duplicators, which would allow for some
measure of competition around a higher cost point while still rewarding
the patent holder's development efforts. But that would mostly make
the patent process more political, and perhaps even more litigious.
Better to get rid of patents altogether, then put public funds into
"open source" research and development, which manufacturing companies
could then build products on -- less potential gain, but also less
cost and liability.

Patents work in various ways in other industries, but the effects
are much the same: they subvert capitalism by promoting monopolies;
they push research into dark secrecy, often hiding flaws until it's
too late; they reduce incentives for others to offer improvements;
they add legal costs, both to file patents and to defend against
them; they can be assigned or sold to parasitical trolls; they lead
to an increasingly inequal world where a few "owners" extort rents
from everyone else. What they don't do is stimulate innovation, or
even do a very good job of rewarding it. Many innovations occur to
multiple people independently, and many more would if research
spaces weren't so compartmentalized by corporate interests. And
most patents fail to pass the basic test of unobviousness. In drugs,
for instance, all it takes to get a patent is a new molecule --
something that chemists create all the time. Take away the patents,
the monopoly pricing, the ridiculous marketing budgets, and all
of that and you'd wind up with a world where Express Scripts had
no reason to make doctors jump through hoops to get away with
prescribing the drugs they regard as most fit for their patients.
And that would be one less hassle for me on a day that has way
too many of them.

Much of my politics, by the way, is driven by a desire to reduce
the amount of unnecessary hassle I -- and by extension other people,
since I figure that we're all pretty much alike -- have to deal with.
One facet of this is that I don't get all worked up over "personal
responsibility" -- the great bugaboo of the right. They think that
people prove their personal worth by overcoming adversity, so they
back policies that create a lot of it (like our current health care
system, or our "education" and "justice" systems), although most of
them wind up being races rigged by the rich for the rich.

Much of the day I try to process some music, and today hasn't been
very productive. I woke up not only in pain but bleary-eyed, something
that happens a lot. Today I have a lot of trouble copying down info
from the microscopic print on CDs -- looks like my eyes will end my
music review career before my ears do (although my grandfather and
father lost most of their hearing by close to my age). Also had trouble
concentrating: took me four plays of Christian McBride to get a little
squib written down, even though the album was pretty obvious. Will
Calhoun got two plays. Played Black Host twice and held it back for
tomorrow. Listening to Daft Punk on Rhapsody as I write this.

One thing that slowed me down was interruptions. The HVAC guy came
over for a Spring system check, so I watched what he did, thinking I
could do all but the pressure test myself, and picking his mind on how
to install a new condensate pump -- a project I keep procrastinating
on although I've had all the parts for about a year now. Didn't start
that but did knock off one little project that's been sitting around
for a couple weeks. I have a little space in the downstairs half-bath
between the vanity and the back wall; hard to get to, but wide enough
I thought I could slip in one of those roll-out baskets they make for
under-sink cabinets. I bought the unit and built and painted a bracket
to hold it a couple weeks ago, but the space is so hard to reach it
would be hell to secure -- and indeed it was, as every possible approach
involved painful contortions. I couldn't get one wall anchor in, or get
close enough to see why. (Probably hit a stud, which otherwise would
have been good news.) And I left the wall side sitting loose on a pair
of corner braces -- I would normally have screwed them tight but couldn't
negotiate the angle. Still, pretty sure it's solid enough, so I felt
like I got something done today.

And wrote this little "day in the life" screed -- more therapy for
me than info for you. Some of this may just be inevitable wear and tear,
but much of the hassle seems unnecessary. And the more I struggle with
nuissances, the less good I get done.

Music Week/Jazz Prospecting

Lost some ground last week, after a good start which picked up some
stragglers, finding some honorable mentions but nothing to add to the
A-list. Rated count is up because I've adding things to the Rhapsody
Streamnotes file -- including a fair amount of jazz I didn't receive.
(Including three new AUM Fidelity releases that finally make me feel
not so bad about being jilted and dumped from their mailing list.) No
Clean Feed package yet -- probably time to complain. Did get a package
from Lithuania with tantalizing obscurities, including a 1974 item
with a very young William Parker on bass (Melodic Art-Tet).

Streamnotes will run after A Downloader's Diary, whenever that's
ready, certainly by the end of the month. Trying to keep up with the
incoming jazz, but not worried about it. More bothered by everything
else that's slipping, including a way overdue update to the Christgau
website, and lots of seemingly imaginary projects of my own. I did
manage to finish my "stone moat" around the back of the house --
just in time for it to get roughed up by yesterday's tornado. We
didn't suffer any building damage, so whatever it was wasn't a real
ground-touching tornado but it stripped a lot of leaves and twigs
and deposited them in swirling patterns on our roof -- something
I've never seen before.

Perry Beekman: So in Love: Perry Beekman Sings and Plays
Cole Porter (2013, self-released): Guitarist-vocalist, based
in Woodstock, NY; first album as far as I can tell, although he's
"been playing in jazz clubs, and at private and corporate events
throughout New York City for the past 25 years." Fifteen Cole Porter
songs, backed by piano and bass. Hard to go wrong.
B+(*)

Marc Bernstein & Good People: Hymn for Life
(2012 [2013], Origin): Saxophonist, from New York but based in
Denmark, lead instrument here is bass clarinet. Fourth album since
1999, quartet with Jacob Anderskov (piano), Jonas Westergaard (bass),
and Rakalam Bob Moses (drums), plus featured singer Sinne Eeg. She
has a remarkable voice, dark and smoky.
B+(***)

Blue Cranes: Swim (2013, Cuneiform): Group, quintet
with two saxes (Reed Walsmith and Joe Cunningham), keyboards (Rebecca
Sanborn), bass (Keith Brush) and drums (Ji Tanzer); based in Portland,
OR; handful of albums since 2007, including a remix of the last one
(not counting an intervening EP). Long guest list this time, including
strings on 5 (of 9) cuts. Big slabs of sound, nothing but volume to
make you think they need more than one horn.
B [advance]

Freddy Cole: This and That (2012 [2013], High Note):
Nat's little brother, 14 years junior which makes him 81 now, finally
found his mature voice a few years back and has been on a steady roll.
Backed by pianist John Di Martino, with tasty guitar by arranger Randy
Napoleon, and select sax and trombone spots. Scrounging a bit for songs
he hasn't done before, but he even makes something of "Everybody's
Talkin'."
B+(***)

The Jay D'Amico Quintet: Tango Caliente (2012 [2013],
Consolidated Artists Productions): Pianist, sixth album since 1983,
the last three subtitled "Jazz Under Glass." First tango themed album,
although he's done classical- and opera-themes. Expanded his trio to
include Andrew Sterman on tenor sax and flute, and Richie Vitale on
trumpet and flugelhorn -- nothing that will be mistaken as authentic.
Nothing caliente here; don't know the Spanish for "lukewarm," but
it's not even that.
C+

Marko Djordjevic & Sveti: Something Beautiful 1709-2110
(2013, Goalkeeper): Drummer, from Serbia, studied at Berklee. Recorded
first album as Sveti in 1995. Group now is a piano trio (Bobby Avey and
Desmond White) with tenor sax added on half the tracks (Eli Degibri and
Tivon Pennicott, three cuts each). All originals.
B+(**)

Satoko Fujii Ma-Do: Time Stands Still (2011 [2013],
Not Two): One of pianist Fujii's many groups, with Natsuki Tamura on
trumpet, Norikatsu Koreyasu on bass, and Akira Horikoshi on drums:
their third and final album together -- Koreyasu died of a heart
attack shortly after. Some typically fine moments from Fujii and
(especially) Tamura, but overall a bit subdued, almost poignant in
the end.
B+(**)

Satoko Fujii New Trio: Spring Storm (2013, Libra):
Japanese pianist, has a lot of albums but not many conventional piano
trios. This one has Todd Nicholson on bass and Takashi Itani on drums.
Some fine examples of her impressive block chording and much more in
a more melodic vein.
B+(***)

Laszlo Gardony: Clarity (2012 [2013], Sunnyside):
Pianist, b. 1956 in Hungary, came to US in 1983 to study at Berklee.
Tenth album since 1986, a solo, all original material, inching up
to a strong rhythmic vamp at the end.
B+(***)

I Compani: Extended (2013, Icdisc): Dutch group,
founded by saxophonist Bo van de Graaf around 1985, ten or so
albums since then, their favorite subject the film music of Nino
Rota, although another is Sun Ra, who provides the only non-Rota
cover here, plus a song title. As the title suggests, the band
has been beefed up here, to as many as 24 members, which can
mean massive or mayhem but is usually slyly amusing. Weak spot
is the vocals, a mix of art song and opera that easily rubs me
the wrong way.
B+(*)

Richard Lanham: Thou Swell (1998 [2013], RL Productions):
Singer, started out with his brothers in a doo-wop group called the Tempo
Tones -- YouTube has a video dated 1957, and Discogs lists one song on an
obscure, undated compilation -- and went on to sing with King Curtis, did
something with Wynton Kelly, joined another group called the Boateneers --
can't find any evidence of them -- and so forth, eventually recording this
debut album, which in turn was shelved for fifteen years. Tenor saxophonist
Jerry Weldon arranged, the songs notably checking Ray Charles and Nat Cole,
with some gospel and calypso worked in, all of which are to his taste.
B+(*)

Ivan Lins: Cornucopia (2012 [2013], Sunnyside):
Brazilian singer-songwriter, b. 1945, scored his first hit in 1970
and has been a major figure ever since, with over 35 albums. This
one is a major production, backed by the SWR Big Band, singer Paula
Morelenbaum, Themba Mkhize's South African Choir, bassist Nilson
Matta, and lots of extra percussionists.
B+(**)

Miki Purnell: Swingin' to the Sea (2013, Sweet and
Lovely Music): Standards singer, one original on this her debut album.
From San Diego, where she maintains a day job as a family practice
physician. Likes vocalese (titles like "Bluesette" and "A Night in
Tunisia"), doesn't scat much, has a slightly girlish voice that grows
on you. Guests Tamir Hendelman (piano) and Lori Bell (flute) produce.
Nice, delicate reading of "The Nearness of You," and her "Swinging
on a Star" is utterly delightful.
B+(*)

Wallace Roney: Understanding (2013, High Note):
Trumpeter, has at least 16 albums since 1987, basically a mainstream
hard bop guy although he's been dabbling with electronics the last
few albums. No such electronics here: back to basics, and crank it
up a bit. He'a also replaced his brother, saxophonist Antoine Roney,
with Arnold Lee on alto and Ben Solomon on tenor. Mostly covers
from the hard bop years, including two each from McCoy Tyner and
Duke Pearson. One original each by Roney and Solomon. Nothing new
here, but it does smoke.
B+(**)

Anna Webber: Percussive Mechanics (2012 [2013], Pirouet):
Plays flute and tenor sax, originally from British Columbia, studied at
McGill and moved to New York. Second (or third) album, recorded in Germany,
with clarinet/alto sax, piano, vibes/marimba, bass, two drummers -- no
names I recognize -- the emphasis on jangly, off-center percussion. All
original compositions.
B+(*)

Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:

Susanne Abbuehl: The Gift (ECM): advance, June 11

Laura Ainsworth: Necessary Evil (Eclectus): June 25

David Ake: Bridges (Posi-Tone)

Kenny Barron: Kenny Barron & the Brazilian Knights (Sunnyside)

Ketil Bjørnstad: La Notte (ECM): advance, June 11

Michel Camilo: What's Up? (Okeh)

The Convergence Quartet: Slow and Steady (No Business)

Correction With Mats Gustafsson: Shift (No Business): advance

Roger Davidson: Journey to Rio (Soundbrush, 2CD)

Gene Ess: Fractal Attraction (SIMP)

Joel Harrison 19: Infinite Possibility (Sunnyside)

Julia Hülsmann Quartet: In Full View (ECM): advance, June 11

Yoron Israel & High Standards: Visions: The Music of Stevie Wonder (Ronja Music)

Rilo Kiley: Under the Blacklight (2007, Warner
Brothers): If Rkives are outtakes to this, I must have
underestimated it -- not that there still isn't room for the
outtakes to be better.
[was: B+(***)] A-

Weekend Roundup

After a lazy week, some more links to ponder:

Igor Bobic: Obama Promises to Hold IRS Accountable on 'Outrageous'
Targeting: Given the history of the federal government harrassing
left-wing political organizations, "outrageous" isn't the first word
that pops into my mind regarding the revelations that some IRS personnel
singled out "tea party" group applications for review of 501(C) status.
My reaction was more like a giggle, but then I found out that none of
the "targeted" organizations were actually denied. I'm not expert in
the relevant law, but I do know that a
peace organization I'm close to
has both a 501(C) fund that is strictly non-political ("educational")
and another funding stream that isn't tax exempt but can be used for
more political activities (although in practice it isn't used for
anything partisan or electoral). So it doesn't exactly surprise me
that "tea party" groups would skirt that law: they are primarily
political propaganda outlets, funded by rich right-wingers who can
use the tax-exempt feature to stretch their self-interested bucks.
Unlike most of the people who donate to our little peace group. (We
haven't itemized deductions in many years, so our donations don't
save us a dime on our taxes.) Obama is right that the IRS should be
non-partisan, but his reaction shouldn't be an outrage that feeds
into enemy talking points. (For instance, I see
Glenn Beck now claiming that the "IRS scandal" is "all connected"
with the Benghazi attack and the Boston bombings. On the Republicans'
ability to keep these pseudo-scandals in the news cycle, crowding out
real issues, see
Julian Rayfield: Sunday Shows Round-Up: All About the IRS and
Benghazi. As for real but ignored issues, see
Conor Friedersdorff: The Biggest Obama Scandals Are Proven and Ignored --
a list Republicans don't care about or even applaud.)

See
Connie Cass: A Look at Why the Bengazi Issue Keeps Coming Back for
a useful review of what happened there and who said what when. Of the
various facts, the one that jumps out at me was that the "US consulate"
in Benghazi was actually a CIA station, and aside from Ambassador
Stevens the people involved were CIA agents and contractors, so the
instinct to lie and cover up is deeply ingrained. The other key point
is that the real political issue here was Obama's decision to intervene
in Libya's civil war and help ouster Moammar Gaddafi. Obama promised
not to put US military forces on the ground in Libya, but it seems
inevitable that the CIA were active, routing guns and information to
anti-Gaddafi forces -- some of which were bound to be anti-American
Islamists (proving again how little the CIA learned from Afghanistan,
where US clients included future leaders of the Taliban and indeed
Osama Bin Laden himself).

Of course, intervention in Libya isn't on the Republican's own
"talking points": they'd rather attack the administration for trying
to substitute "extremists" for "terrorists," mostly in the belief
that their language is a more potent stimulus to further US-backed
wars in the region. Even there, what they loathe Obama for isn't
that he hasn't been belligerent enough for their taste -- excepting
McCain and Graham, of course, who never met a war they didn't want
to plunge into -- but that Obama isn't jingoistic enough.

Paul Krugman: How the Case for Austerity Has Crumbled: Book
review of: Neil Irwin: The Alchemists: Three Central Bankers
and a World on Fire (Penguin); Mark Blyth: Austerity: The
History of a Dangerous Idea (Oxford University Press); and
David A. Stockman: The Great Deformation: The Corruption of
Capitalism in America (Public Affairs). But starts off with
the Reinhart-Rogoff fiasco -- the paper that claimed that when
a nation's debt/GDP ratio crosses the 90% mark the economy sinks
into catastrophe, but turned out to be wrong in so many ways:

The real mystery, however, was why Reinhart-Rogoff was ever taken
seriously, let alone canonized, in the first place. Right from the
beginning, critics raised strong concerns about the paper's methodology
and conclusions, concerns that should have been enough to give everyone
pause. Moreover, Reinhart-Rogoff was actually the second example of a
paper seized on as decisive evidence in favor of austerity economics,
only to fall apart on careful scrutiny. Much the same thing happened,
albeit less spectacularly, after austerians became infatuated with a
paper by Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna purporting to show that
slashing government spending would have little adverse impact on
economic growth and might even be expansionary. Surely that experience
should have inspired some caution.

So why wasn't there more caution? The answer, as documented by some
of the books reviewed here and unintentionally illustrated by others,
lies in both politics and psychology: the case for austerity was and
is one that many powerful people want to believe, leading them to seize
on anything that looks like a justification.

Here's a very good explanation of how recessions (depressions)
happen, especially following a prolonged expansion of debt:

All that was needed to collapse these houses of cards was some kind
of adverse shock, and in the end the implosion of US subprime-based
securities did the deed. By the fall of 2008 the housing bubbles on
both sides of the Atlantic had burst, and the whole North Atlantic
economy was caught up in "deleveraging," a process in which many
debtors try -- or are forced -- to pay down their debts at the same
time.

Why is this a problem? Because of interdependence: your spending
is my income, and my spending is your income. If both of us try to
reduce our debt by slashing spending, both of our incomes plunge --
and plunging incomes can actually make our indebtedness worse even
as they also produce mass unemployment.

Krugman could have extended these paragraphs into a tutorial on
how [Keynesian] macroeconomics has learned how to ameliorate and
reverse recessions, but he wound up illustrating the principles
negatively, by showing how actual central bankers ignored standard
prescriptions and made their economies worse. The key insight is
that if my income is someone else's spending, and others in the
private sector aren't spending, that deficit can be made up by
having government spend more. In other words, all it takes to
avoid disaster is the political will to deliberately do something
constructive about it. That will power was undone by a coalition of
bankers and conservative politicians, partly because they fixated
on threats (to them, anyway) that were mostly imaginary, and mostly
because they didn't give a damn about the hardships their welfare
forced on everyone else.

Krugman notes how many advocates of austerity see it as a morality
play -- as Andrew Mellon put it "to purge the rottenness" from the
system (nor is this view limited to curmudgeonly bankers; see
Alex Pareene: Kinsley Loves Austerity Because It Is "Spinach") --
and he finds examples in Stockman's book (a tirade against one "spree"
after another). Krugman then adds:

So is the austerian impulse all a matter of psychology? No, there's
also a fair bit of self-interest involved. As many observers have noted,
the turn away from fiscal and monetary stimulus can be interpreted, if
you like, as giving creditors priority over workers. Inflation and low
interest rates are bad for creditors even if they promote job creation;
slashing government deficits in the face of mass unemployment may deepen
a depression, but it increases the certainty of bondholders that they'll
be repaid in full. I don't think someone like Trichet was consciously,
cynically serving class interests at the expense of overall welfare; but
it certainly didn't hurt that his sense of economic morality dovetailed
so perfectly with the priorities of creditors.

It's also worth noting that while economic policy since the financial
crisis looks like a dismal failure by most measures, it hasn't been so
bad for the wealthy. Profits have recovered strongly even as unprecedented
long-term unemployment persists; stock indices on both sides of the Atlantic
have rebounded to pre-crisis highs even as median income languishes. It
might be too much to say that those in the top 1 percent actually benefit
from a continuing depression, but they certainly aren't feeling much pain,
and that probably has something to do with policymakers' willingness to
stay the austerity course. [ . . . ]

I'd argue that what happened next -- the way policymakers turned their
back on practically everything economists had learned about how to deal
with depressions, the way elite opinion seized on anything that could be
used to justify austerity -- was a much greater sin. The financial crisis
of 2008 was a surprise, and happened very fast; but we've been stuck in
a regime of slow growth and desperately high unemployment for years now.
And during all that time policymakers have been ignoring the lessons of
theory and history.

It's a terrible story, mainly because of the immense suffering that
has resulted from these policy errors. It's also deeply worrying for
those who like to believe that knowledge can make a positive difference
in the world. To the extent that policymakers and elite opinion in general
have made use of economic analysis at all, they have, as the saying goes,
done so the way a drunkard uses a lamppost: for support, not illumination.
Papers and economists who told the elite what it wanted to hear were
celebrated, despite plenty of evidence that they were wrong; critics
were ignored, no matter how often they got it right.

It would take a much longer piece, but at some point it would be
worth breaking out the things that constitute "immense suffering":
the unfairness of so much unemployment; discrimination against all
sorts of marginalized workers, especially the old (who policymakers
expect to work longer and longer) and the young (who face extra
difficulties in starting careers, and in many cases start with
unprecedented debt burdens); and much more. Nor is public spending
only needed to counterbalance the drop in private spending -- the
need for infrastructure and public goods has never been greater,
and the austerity fixation is crippling us (physically, mentally,
aspirationally).

Music Week/Jazz Prospecting

Music: Current count 21406 [21383] rated (+23), 622 [617] unrated (+5).
Not sure what accounts for the fall off, but then don't remember much of
last week.

A-list records continue to accumulate at a dizzying pace, a far cry
from a couple months ago when they were scarce as hen's teeth -- clever
triangulators will note that in addition to the two featured in this
rather short week there are two more in the unpacking list that were
first uncovered on Rhapsody. Thus far I have 41 A-list records this
year, so we're still not quite on track to getting to last year's 125,
but not so far behind either.

Rodrigo Amado Motion Trio + Jeb Bishop: The Flame Alphabet
(2011 [2013], Not Two): Bishop is the Chicago-based trombone player
who left the Vandermark Five about five years ago, and has kept busy
since then mostly guesting on projects where he easily adds to the
noise level -- his tour with Cactus Truck is fresh on my mind -- but
here he takes the lead without the least bit of slop in a showcase
of avant-trombone that would turn the heads of Steve Swell, or for
that matter Roswell Rudd: a huge improvement over Bishop's previous
album with Portuguese tenor saxophonist Amado's trio, Burning
Live at Jazz ao Centro. And Amado is sharp as ever, ably backed
by Miguel Mira on cello and Gabriel Ferrandini on drums.
A-

Jerry Bergonzi: By Any Other Name (2012 [2013], Savant):
Tenor saxophonist, from Boston, has a long list of records since 1983
but has never sounded better than in his recent streak -- I have four
of his last six albums at A-, the other two just a hair under. So I was
surprised when this didn't kick in, but I blame Phil Grenadier's trumpet,
which ties the sax up in unison work and takes solos that add up to very
little. In his own spots the saxphonist is as brusque as ever -- there
just aren't enough of them. Songs are all originals, but parenthetically
refer to standards.
B+(**)

Jonathan Finlayson & Sicilian Defense: Moment & the
Message (2012 [2013], Pi): Trumpet player, first album after
quality side credits with Steve Lehman, Steve Coleman, Tomas Fujiwara,
and -- most likely; still haven't heard the album -- Mary Halvorson.
Quintet with Miles Okazaki (guitar), David Virelles (piano), Keith
Witty (bass), and Damion Reid (drums). No second horn keeps his out
front, while the guitar and piano players are rising stars, sparkling
soloists with an intriguingly complex interplay.
A-

Hush Point: Hush Point (2013, Sunnyside): Postbop
pianoless quartet, the two horns John McNeil's trumpet and Jeremy
Udden's alto sax, with Aryeh Kobrinsky on bass and Vinnie Sperrazza
on drums. I initially assumed this would be McNeil's show -- he's
about 30 years senior -- but Udden outwrote him 4-to-3, Kobrinsky
pitched in, and they picked up two Jimmy Giuffre tunes that seem
like a shared connection. The hornwork is tight and sly, the rhythm
slippery. Nothing spectacular, but could well grow on you.
B+(***)

Steven Lugerner: For We Have Heard (2013,
NoBusiness/Primary): Plays double reeds, clarinets, flutes, saxes.
Second album, after his ambitious 2-CD debut (also has a group
record, Dads, by Chives). Quartet with Darren Johnston on
trumpet, Myra Melford on piano, and Matt Wilson on drums. Strong
soloists in their rare spots, but the compositions come first, with
most of the album is woven around the leader's intricate reeds.
B+(***)

Jackie Ryan: Listen Here (2012 [2013], Open Art):
Standards singer, six or seven records since 2000; has a deep,
flexible voice that over an album gains stature and authority.
Arranged by bassist John Clayton, features pianist Gerald Clayton,
with Graham Dechter on guitar and selected horn spots -- haven't
heard much from him lately, but Rickey Woodard sounds splendid.
B+(*)

Renée Yoxon/Mark Ferguson: Here We Go Again (2012 [2013],
self-released): Singer and her pianist, based in Ottawa up in Canada,
second album; original songs, slight edge to Yoxon with about half
credited to both. Band selectively adds trumpet, trombone, sax, and/or
guitar, and they flesh out the sound nicely. She likes to scat, and
isn't bad at it.
B+(*)

Some corrections on a recent Jazz Prospecting review:

Clipper Anderson: Ballad of the Sad Young Men (2008-10
[2013], Origin): Bassist, originally from Montana, based in Seattle
since 1992. Third album, if you count an Xmas with Greta Matassa's
name first, plus a lot of side credits going back to 1984. Anderson
sings as well as plays bass, moldy standards done in the old Sinatra
mold, except that he's not Sinatra, and Darin Clendenin's piano trio
doesn't pack much punch.
B

Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:

Chris Amemiya & Jazz Coalescence: In the Rain Shadow (OA2)

David Arnay: 8 (Studio N)

Lynn Baker Quartet: LectroCoustic (OA2)

Diego Barber/Hugo Cipres: 411 (Origin)

Black Host: Life in the Sugar Candle Mines (Northern Spy)

Will Calhoun: Life in This World (Motéma)

Ceramic Dog: Your Turn (Northern Spy)

Etienne Charles: Creole Soul (Culture Shock Music): advance, July 23

Corey Christiansen: Lone Prairie (Origin)

Amos Garrett Jazz Trio: Jazzblues (Stony Plain)

Christian McBride & Inside Straight: People Music (Mack Avenue)

Bernie Mora & Tangent: Dandelion (Rhombus)

The Rempis Percussion Quartet: Phalanx (Aerophonic)

The Rosenthals: Fly Away (American Melody)

Colin Stetson: New History Warfare, Vol. 3: To See More Light (Constellation)

Wheelhouse: Boss of the Plains (Aerophonic)

Zs: Grain (Northern Spy)

Expert Comments

Someone asked about Hugh Masekela:

Hugh Masekela: seven albums makes me far from an expert, but the
best I've heard is Home Is Where the Heart Is (1972), followed
by Live at the Market Theatre (2006). Both are on Rhapsody, as
is one or two anthologies of "The Chisa Years (the 1972 album
was originally on Chisa). The Penguin Guide's top pick is
Stimela (1994, VSOP, but the music dates from those same Chisa
years, 1966-72; I've never seen it).

By the way, as far as South African jazz goes, my longtime favorite
is Dudu Pukwana's In the Townships (1973, later on Earthworks
CD).

By the way, Jazz Prospecting up. Jonathan Finlayson has probably
cinched "debut of the year," although Peter Evans' Zebulon is
still the year's most imposing trumpet album (unless Slippery
Rock is). Just found out that one label has been trying to send me
stuff ever since their founding via the Village Voice. Only record the
Voice ever (well, since 1980) forwarded to me was a Fall Out Boy
advance. Impatiently awaiting the new batch of Clean Feeds. At least
I'm still on Rodrigo Amado's mailing list.

Before I finished, Milo Miles posted his answer:

Actually, that's a pretty good starting-place album [The Lasting
Impressions of Ooga Booga]. Vintage others I also like a lot are
Home Is Where the Music Is and Time. Pretty fond of the
recent one Jabulani, too. The only one to avoid outright is
Grazin' the the Grass greatest hits, which are inferior
remakes.

Cam Patterson:

I finally got around to reading Gregg Allman's autobio Ain't My
Cross to Bear, co-written with Alan Light. This isn't the great
Allman Brothers history, although it contains some of that -- you
won't get the details of Duane's accident, just the awkwardness of the
survivors playing over Duane's body at his funeral (as far as I can
tell, the last funeral Gregory has attended to this day, although
death abides throughout), but you'll find out the personal
relationships that brought the band together in the first place in a
way no biographer could ever conjure. (First out of town gig that
Gregg Allman ever played: the Stork Club in Mobile Alabama, which I
can point you to today even though it's long gone.) And if this book
isn't written well in the way that the Richard Hell book leads you to
think about how that southern boy thought his way out of the narrow
Kentucky box he grew up in, it's well written in the sense that it
totally nails Gregg's conversational mannerisms. And it's equally
naked in its honesty -- the author may not always be right, but I
don't think he's lying about anything either.

The big problem, right away, is women. I'm not sure that Gregg
Allman has had a satisfactory relationship with a female other than
his mom in his whole life. He's respectful to his second-to-last (and
longest at not quite 10 years) wife Stacey, who I know a bit. And Cher
gets her turn, without any acrimony and with sacks of honesty on the
author's part. (And the slightly awkward but incredibly generous
shout-out to Chaz Bono makes you love both of them.) But most of the
rest of his wives (they are numerous) are addicts, porn stars, or
worse. And the remainder of the women mentioned are nameless and
disregarded.

Contrasting with this is Gregg's (and Duane's) unreflective,
effortless anti-war and anti-racist behavior. I guess their dad being
a vet who was senselessly murdered may have seeded the first, but the
inclusiveness of the Allmans is natural and honest and not usual for
the time. There is no rationalization at all, and the Allman family
clearly wasn't an inherent bastion of racial tolerance. But slipping
through the cracks of the awful geographical attitudes of the time
permitted an awesome opportunity for the Allman brothers (small "b")
to expand beyond both the chitlin circuit and the lily-white
Beatles/Byrds cover band syndrome that they played against.

So, as I said, I think that Gregg is being honest here, but the
truth is a difficult metric. Does he dis the Grateful Dead (who he
played with) because he doesn't get their music or their fans, or
because Jerry Garcia famously called him a narc? And speaking of
which, would Scooter Herring (who never met face to face with Gregg
after his 18 months of incarceration) have written about his trial in
the same way? Did Gregg really not turn anyone else (other than his
bandmates, which he fesses to, and which would have definitely
happened anyway) onto King H?

At the end of the day, that's what the book is about anyway, a
12-step journey that few who have sunk to Gregg's depths rise from. He
got his new liver and he deserves the chance to be honest (and notably
unselfrightious) about how he never got his act together until the
very end, and then you wonder.

There are a couple of grace notes here. One is when Derek Trucks
makes an appearance. The second is the extended denouement, which is
long and rambling and contrasts with the fey coda that Hell tacked
onto his own book. Gregg probably wrote this himself, and it's like
what happens in "Layla" when the original song stops and the piano
riff takes over, Skydog fluttering overheard. Long, jazzy, too long,
and gorgeous, that's what it is.

Inspirational quote:

"I would imagine that Lynyrd Skynyrd had more hits than anyone
else, but they sure ended up appealing to a real redneck bunch of
folks."

When questioned about that "inspirational quote" Patterson added:

I've always had more Lynyrd Skynyrd albums than Allman Brothers
albums, and I feel like LS has an impact like Hank Williams that the
Allmans lack. But that impact comes at a price, and there is nothing
about LS that is ecumenical. At the end of the day, we all need to
look out for each other. The Allman Brothers, through hook and crook,
did that, and LS did not. As someone who was born in the south,
although I don't consider myself a capital-S Southerner, I feel like
Lynyrd Skynyrd was a glorious dead end, as much of a dead end as Gram
Parsons (who toured with a Dixie flag too). I'm just tired of that,
tired of defending it, tired of trying to understand it.

What LS are up to now is something I don't care anymore to think
about. I've got my journey and they've got theirs. What they did in
the past is fabulous and immediate. That they recoiled to regional
jingoism undermines what regional pride I might have.

Weekend Roundup

Another last-minute link grab:

Nicholas Blanford: Hizballah and Israel Spar as Syria's Conflict Threatens
to Spin Out of Control: Israel's 2006 war against Hezbollah (effectively
Lebanon) should have yielded several clearcut lessons. One is that Hezbollah
is a very effective defensive fighting force against Israeli land assaults.
Another is that Hezbollah's cache of Iranian or Syrian rockets aren't worth
a thing, either as a deterrent against Israeli attack -- if anything, their
existence provoked that attack -- or as an offensive weapon. Yet Hezbollah
is evidently so concerned about maintaining their Syrian weapons pipeline
that they've joined Assad's Syrian army in fighting against the rebels.
Hezbollah's presence in Syria, in turn, gives Israel all the excuse they
think they need to fly into Syria and bomb targets they think are related
to Hezbollah -- presumably pro-Assad forces, although they've also claimed
to be neutral in the Syrian Civil War, and some Israelis have argued they
would prefer Assad (you know, "the devil you know"; see
Israel has no desire for Assad to fall) to stay in power, so they
may not care who they bomb. Needless to say, both Israel and Hezbollah
are making the mess in Syria worse, adding dangerous factors that make
it very likely to spill over into Lebanon, while Israel is just stirring
the pot in Syria, giving all sides more reason to hate it and plot
revenge.

Also see
Robert Fisk talk about Syria, attesting to the extreme brutality of
the war, also questioning the logic of Israel's intervention:

Are they really bombing missiles going to the Hezbollah, the so-called
Fateh-110 missile, which was first test-fired by Iran, what, 11 years
ago? Conceivable. But when you consider the Syrians have also used these
missiles, according to the Americans, last December against rebel forces,
why would they use armaments, which they use against -- in this ferocious
life-and-death battle against the rebels, why should they be shipping
them out of Syria en route to Lebanon, where the Hezbollah don't appear
at the moment to have any need for them, since they have thousands of
other weapons, a weapon which I would have thought the government would
want to keep in Damascus?

Fisk also says something about the state of journalism:

And I think one of the problems is, as I say, this parasitic, osmotic
relationship between journalists and power, our ever-growing ability,
our wish, to -- you know, to rely on these utterly bankrupt comments
from various unnamed, anonymous intelligence sources. And I'm just
looking at a copy of the Toronto Globe and Mail, February 1st,
2013. It's a story about al-Qaeda in Algeria. And what is the sourcing?
"U.S. intelligence officials said," "a senior U.S. intelligence official
said," "U.S. officials said," "the intelligence official said," "Algerian
officials say," "national security sources considered," "European security
sources said," "the U.S. official said," "the officials acknowledged."
I went -- boy, I've got another even worse example here from The Boston
Globe and Mail [ sic ], November 2nd, 2012. But, you know, we might
as well name our newspapers "Officials Say." This is the cancer at the
bottom of modern journalism, that we do not challenge power anymore. Why
are Americans tolerating these garbage stories with no real sourcing
except for very dodgy characters indeed, who won't give their names?

It was during Reagan's first term that the phrase bean counter came into
prominent usage. These were the efficiency experts whose job it was to
increase profits for the major corporations, mainly by introducing
speedups, job consolidations, forced overtime, the hiring of part-time
workers -- along with artful and ruthless union-busting.

This was also the beginning of the "War on Iran," the "War on Drugs,"
the war against the people of Nicaragua and El Salvador (all of them
Marxists doubtless bent on rampaging through the streets of US cities)
and a dangerous escalation of threats against the Soviet Union/Evil
Empire.

As social fear and insecurity rise, mental health declines.

Apparently, so does physical health. According to a new study from
Rice University and the University Colorado at Boulder in Social Science
Quarterly, despite modest gains in lifespan over the past century, the
United States still trails many of the world's countries when it comes
to life expectancy, and its poorest citizens live approximately five
years less than more affluent people. The United States, which spends
far more money on medical care than other advanced industrialized
countries, has the sickest residents in every category of unwellness.

Fuzzy Red Lines

A little over two years ago the "Arab Spring" pro-democracy movement
broke out in Syria, a nation that nearly everyone agreed could benefit
from more political freedom, seeing as how it's been ruled by the Assad
family since the 1960s and by one military clique or another even further
back. Similar dictatorships in Tunisia and Egypt fell quickly; struggles
against the dictators of Yemen and Bahrein dragged out inconclusively;
but in Libya and Syria demonstrators were met with violence and some
fraction of the military establishment broke against the regime, plunging
those nations into civil war. Demonstrations in Jordan faded quickly with
a few token reforms. And nothing much happened in Saudi Arabia, probably
the one nation in the region most in need of a democratic overhaul.

One prism into understanding how these movements played out is to
map them against US influence in the region. US interests and actions
in the Middle East have been schizophrenic since the late 1940s when
US administrations found themselves not just allied but in love with
two conflicting suitors: Israel, and Saudi-Arabian oil (although any
oil would do, especially Iran's from 1953-79). One problem was that
those paramours came with a lot of baggage: Israel was constantly at
war with its Arab neighbors and its own [Palestinian] people, forging
an elite militarist culture that thrives on conflict, foments hatred
against everything Arab, and has turned most of world opinion against
them -- the major exception America's own fundamentalist Christians
and militarists. The Saudi ruling family, on the other hand, is joined
at the hip to the most extremely reactionary Salafist Muslim clergy,
and has spent billions of dollars attempting to export their religious
orthodoxy throughout the Middle East and into Afghanistan and Pakistan,
where it turned virulently anti-American. But America's true obsession
was the Cold War, in service of which no tyrant or ideologue could be
found too unsavory. The Israelis and Saudis became expert at camouflaging
their own obsessions as anti-communist fervor, so the US could embrace
them both.

But another facet of America's Cold War obsession was promotion of
democracy, not so much for allies as for countries on the other (or no)
side, but as a contrast to the "unfree" Soviet-style regimes. So when
masses of people demand democracy, our natural tendency is to applaud.
In the cases of Tunisia and Egypt -- secure military allies with tired
and unsavory leaders -- Obama had little reason to resist, so the US
subtly nudged their power structure to go with the flow. In Yemen, one
of Obama's favorite drone-shooting ranges, and Bahrein, with its Shiite
majority possibly tilting toward Iran, the US was more reserved. But
Libya and Syria were rarely US allies, and most of the "brains" behind
US policy in the region -- especially the "neocons" -- have spent most
of their careers bashing their leaders, so the US had no interests in
maintaining them, but also no influence or leverage that could be used
to democratize them. Consequently, the more the US leaned against them,
the less then had to lose by suppressing their revolts violently. In
hindsight, the best way the US could have helped to democratize those
nations would have been to develop normal relations with them. (It is
worth noting that the only Soviet bloc states that didn't democratize
are the ones the US fought wars against, followed by long, grudge-filled
periods of isolation: China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba.)

As soon as Libya and Syria broke into civil war, the neocons -- most
vociferously, Senators McCain and Graham, who never miss an opportunity
to plunge us deeper into hell -- and their "liberal hawk" cronies started
crying for the US to intervene. How anyone could think that inserting the
US military into a conflict would save lives is beyond me. (The historical
basis for that idea was probably the NATO intervention in Bosnia. After
just two weeks of bombing, the Serbs accepted a ceasefire and signed the
Dayton Accords ending a war between Serbia and Bosnia that had dragged on
for more than two years. That intervention surely did save lives, at least
if you don't factor in the subsequent Kosovo War, which was made all the
more likely by the expectation that NATO would again intervene against
Serbia -- as it did.) But you can't judge interventions by simply balancing
deaths on one side versus the other. US intervention means that people who
wouldn't have been killed otherwise are now being killed by the US -- a
fact that won't be easily rationalized by the people the US attacked.

Obama did finally agree to intervene in Libya, but only after France
and the UK had committed to do so. US firepower quickly degraded Libya's
military power, and the civil war turned against Gaddafi, ending after
about three months. Obama was careful not to land US troops, or to put
the US into a position where the US would have any responsibility for
postwar administration and reconstruction. Nonetheless, last September
a group of Islamic jihadists attacked the US consulate in Benghazi --
the center of the anti-Gaddafi resistance, presumably the most grateful
city for the US intervention -- killing four Americans, the sort of
blowback that should always be expected. The Benghazi attack has since
become a cause celebre for the Republicans, who have gone so far as to
argue that Obama should be impeached for his "cover up" of the attack.
(As far as I can tell, that "cover up" consisted of nothing more than
Susan Rice making some erroneous statements the day after, confusing
the violent attack in Benghazi with non-violent anti-American protests
elsewhere. I would write more about this if I could make any sense out
of it, but I can't. The one thing I can say is that attacking Obama
for something bad happening after he intervened in Libya isn't likely
to be the most effective way to convince him to intervene in Syria,
where the number of bad things that can happen is much greater.)

Dexter Filkins has a long article,
The Thin Red Line, on Syria, the pressures put on Obama to intervene
there, and some of the risks. Filkins is one of those reporters for whom
war is just business -- booming, as his book,
The Forever War, shows.
He recounts much of what I wrote above on Yugoslavia and Libya, while
only glancingly mentioning less "successful" US interventions like Iraq
and Afghanistan. The title refers to Obama's casual warning to Assad
that Syrian use of chemical weapons would cross a "red line" leading
to US intervention. ("Red lines" have been much in the news lately,
especially regarding Iran's "nuclear program" -- what degree of offense
would "justify" Israel and/or the US to preemptively attack Iran.)
Consequently, advocates of going to war with Syria are scouring the
data for any evidence of poison gas use, under the theory that having
drawn a red line there, Obama will have no choice but to intervene --
the entire credibility of the US is put at stake by Obama's careless
use of jargon.

The Syrian Civil War has resulted in, to pick two recent estimates,
between 70 and 120 thousand deaths, with more than a million refugees,
and many more internally displaced. Those are substantial numbers,
even if they are still less than the death-and-refugee toll of the
Civil War in Iraq that was triggered and abetted by the US invasion
and occupation. (At least no one was so stupid as to urge anyone to
intervene to "save lives" in Iraq. Of course, enforcing a "no fly"
zone against the US would have been difficult, but we are talking
about genocide here, something the world has committed to tolerate
"never again.")

Filkins reports on three options for US intervention: establishing
a "no fly" zone; arming the rebels; and somehow securing Syria's
chemical weapon sites. The "no fly" zone is regarded as more difficult
than it was in Libya because Syria has more sophisticated anti-aircraft
defenses, although they don't seem to cause Israel much trouble. The
bigger problem is that in itself it's unlikely to have much effect --
e.g., on artillery and missiles. One suggestion is to use the "Patriot
anti-missile system" to intercept Syrian SCUD missiles. (Is this the
source of the adage that "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels"?)
So it's very likely that a "no fly" zone will be a stepping stone to
deeper involvement, as indeed it was in Libya.

Arming the rebels is relatively easy to do, and is already being done
by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and possibly others. However, this gets
real tricky real fast. There are multiple groups of rebels, and some of
them are friendlier to the US than others, and the last thing you want
is to send arms to Al-Qaeda-types in Syria -- which are a formidable part
of the resistance -- who might wind up using the arms against American
targets, so you want to pick and choose who gets what, but in doing so
you're not only arming the rebels against Syria, you're arming them
against each other. And while you might argue that a "no fly" zone is
a neutral way to level the battlefield, arming select groups of the
rebels ends any pretense at neutrality or disinterest. You now have a
"dog in the fight": which is not only bad news for Assad, it's a
challenge for anyone who is wary of American power in the region --
a short list which includes Iran and Russia, even before this revolt
provided Syria with arms. The result is surely an arms race, escalating
even further the level of violence.

Arming the rebels also means forgoing the alternative, which is to
negotiate an arms embargo with Syria's suppliers, and enforce comparable
limits on the rebels' suppliers. The desired effect would be to let the
conflict degrade into a stalemate, which would give both sides reason
to negotiate a power-sharing agreement and move toward a democratic
scheme which protects interests allied with both sides. If the US goes
in and arms the rebels, that option disappears. The rebels become more
convinced in their eventual triumph, cementing their resolve to fight
on. From that point the only way to long-term suffering is to shorten
the war by increasing the rebels' firepower and leverage, which not
only helps them defeat Assad, it also allows them to more completely
dominate the social, ethnic, and tribal groups that had favored Assad.
And it also makes more likely an internecine war between rebel groups --
as happened when the Russians finally quit Afghanistan.

Even Filkins admits that the third option -- securing Syria's chemical
weapons -- is a fool's errand. Nobody knows how many sites there are, how
many munitions there are, where they all are, or much of anything else
about them. What you really need is a UN disarmament team to set up camp
in Syria and track them all down, but for that to happen you have to stop
the shooting, in which case you might as well solve the conflict. As for
the US doing it directly, Filkins reports an estimate that it would take
75,000 troops: the basic scheme there is to conquer the country, then
look for the illicit weapons -- for lessons on how this "works," see
Iraq. Even if you could magically wipe the country clean of chemical
weapons, it's unlikely that the conflit would be less deadly. They wind
up being nothing more than a side-thought: a problem people should have
thought of before starting a war that makes their use much more likely.

Obama has managed to frustrate virtually every side in the conflict.
He never offered any pretense of neutrality, and has gone out of his way
to offend Assad backers from Iran to Hezbollah. He's had better relations
with Russia, but not much. Saudi and Qatari arms shipments inevitably
smell of US approval, as does Israel's recent bombings of Syria -- one
thing the latter does is to test Syria's air defenses, useful research
for that "no fly" zone. The CIA is reportedly on the ground in Syria,
feeding intelligence info to the rebels. On the other hand, it's hard
to tell who's "winning" the war, and nothing Obama has done is likely
to tilt the balance, so he's not winning points with the neocon crowd --
nor should he, given the way they've lashed out at him over Libya, which
he finessed about as elegantly as any American president could.

As far as I'm concerned, Assad's extremely violent counterrevolt is
inexcusable, ensuring his future as an international pariah. However,
the more I read of the rebels, the less sympathetic I am to them, and
the more I fear their possible triumph.
Andrew Bacevich makes an interesting point:

Whatever Obama does or doesn't do about Syria won't affect the larger
trajectory of events. Except to Syrians, the fate of Syria per se doesn't
matter any more than the fate of Latvia or Laos. The context within which
the upheaval there is occurring -- what preceded it and what it portends --
matters a great deal. Yet on this score, Washington is manifestly clueless
and powerless.

History possesses a remarkable capacity to confound. Right when the
path ahead appears clear -- remember when the end of the Cold War seemed
to herald a new age of harmony? -- it makes a U-turn. The Syrian civil
war provides only the latest indication that one such radical reversal
is occurring before our very eyes. For Syria bears further witness to
the ongoing disintegration of the modern Middle East and the reemergence
of an assertive Islamic world, a development likely to define the 21st
century.

Recall that the modern Middle East is a relatively recent creation.
It emerged from the wreckage of World War I, the handiwork of cynical
and devious European imperialists. As European (and especially British)
power declined after World War II, the United States, playing the role
of willing patsy, assumed responsibility for propping up this misbegotten
product of European venality -- a dubious inheritance, if there ever
was one.

Now it's all coming undone. Today, from the Maghreb to Pakistan,
the order created by the West to serve Western interests is succumbing
to an assault mounted from within. Who are the assailants? People intent
on exercising that right to self-determination that President Woodrow
Wilson bequeathed to the world nearly 100 years ago. What these multitudes
are seeking remains to be seen. But they don't want and won't countenance
outside interference.

If Assad falls, either democratically or by arms, the successor
state will very probably be more conservative, more devoutly Islamist,
and very likely more aggressively anti-American and anti-Israel --
in other words, it will be a state that most Americans who reflexively
clamored for Assad's ouster will find disappointing. And as such it
will ratchet America's frustration with the region even deeper. It
will also be a war-torn wreck, with few prospects of reconstruction
any time soon. Barring US occupation, it is unlikely to become as
corrupt as Iraq or Afghanistan, but like those two disaster areas,
its people has already fragmented into many conflicting identities,
which will continue to tear at the social fabric even after the war
ends. Moreover, as far as the US is concerned, Syria will always be
on the wrong side of Israel, and for that matter the wrong side of
Lebanon, and if those features fade it will revert to no meaning at
all. The only reason McCain and Graham and their ilk care at all
about Syria is that they smell war there, and they see in every war
an opportunity for the US to assert its omnipotence.

I too see war in Syria as a test for the US, and especially as a
test for Obama: the test is whether we can finally see clear to stay
out of a conflict where in the long run we can only hurt ourselves.
The US is so infatuated with itself that it is a sucker for the likes
of McCain and Graham, and Obama has repeatedly allowed himself to be
seduced by American power -- partly, no doubt, because the Republicans
so delight in trash talking to him, taunting him as an apologist,
impugning him for every irresolute doubt. Obama once said that he
wants to change how America thinks about war, but he seems unable
to even change how he himself thinks. Syria is a test of his ability
to pit sanity against jargon, for rarely has a course of action --
intervention -- loomed so temptingly yet been so clearly fraught
with folly.

Expert Comments

Someone makes an Adorno joke, and suddenly an avalanche of
Adorno-bashing. I wrote:

Crawled out of bed this afternoon and found to my dismay . . . it's
Adorno-bashing time again. It's been a long while since I read him --
I got a little too close to the flame 40 years ago and pulled away
when the mojo became too, uh, automatic (a reaction Adorno himself
should have approved of). Still, it bears repeating that fascism was
(and is) nasty stuff, and searching for its roots and reverberations
in intellectual history and popular culture has not been fruitless --
indeed, as JM Keynes (a fellow spirit in more ways than most realize)
argued, what else is there? I'm more convinced than ever of the
rottenness of our mass culture -- not that I don't occasionally enjoy
it, and I certainly don't see any point in trying to escape it, but
even so I'm filled with dread.

What I have been reading is Tony Judt's "Thinking the Twentieth
Century" -- which provides plenty of opportunity to think about
fascism. The section on Hayek suggests it would be witty to argue that
both Hayek and Adorno took their anti-fascism to ridiculous extremes,
in the former claiming that all economic planning leads to doom, in
the latter that all popular culture does the same -- except, of
course, that in Adorno's case that's only a strawman argument, whereas
dangerous people actually believe in Hayek. I also finally realized
that Judt's antipathy to the individualism of the new left was deeply
rooted in his Trotskyist upbringing. Obviously, he was sheltered from
a whole tradition that I, for one, feel deep in my bones. Doesn't mean
he doesn't have a point about the political inefficacy of the new
left, but he does suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding -- a
blind spot even for a gifted historian. Take Adorno or Hayek out of
history and you get nothing. (Keynes too, although his history is less
past.)

I figured that's probably a dead end, but Jeff Hamilton wrote:

Yeah, I did an earlier post on Adorno, didn't like the tone it took
toward our host, but didn't have time then to make the changes, so
withdrew it. Xgau is, after all, welcome to his resistance, as is
anyone.

But two points: one is that Adorno's writing lives, especially in a
volume like Minima Moralia which has launched many a philosophical
ship. Other is that we don't get feminism in its most bracing, radical
insight without a figure like Shulamith Firestone, about whom a recent
NYer reportorial biography by Susan Faludi was very interesting to me,
not least because I teach Ellen Willis and was aware that together
they led, for a short time in 1969, a NY feminist cadre called NY
Radical Women. I don't read much anymore in Adorno's Dialectics, but
Faludi's piece led me back to Firestone's Dialectics of Sex (1970),
where several crucial Willis' ideas get their first airing. No one
will doubt that Adorno had his critical effect on Brecht, Benjamin,
& Dwight Macdonald. But how about Firestone's effect on Willis? It
ought to be a subject of study, but instead Firestone was a hot-head
and was trashed in within radical feminist circles. I share Tom Hull's
"dread" of mass (or pop) culture -- not the first time I've said that
here. Nor am I in any way in a position to deny it as a crucial part
of what makes my life worth living. Critical negativity is something
Adorno does not dodge, though in the connoisseurship on this site, it
can be easy to resign oneself to sheepish cataloguing.

Looking at other posts, including a sheepish one from Joe Yanosik,
I also wrote:

Two more comments unrelated to my last one:

I think it was completely appropriate for Joe to question the math
on Bob's "30-40" assertion, even if there was no chance that Bob would
document it himself. Those are pretty incredible numbers, especially
relative to a pretty good benchmark album. Milo, Chris, and I all
checked and responded that the numbers do indeed make sense, and Bob
at least hasn't backed down. Moreover, while we may have minor
differences of opinion and haven't all heard everything, our lists are
pretty consistent. But that doesn't mean it's not worth asking the
question.

One thing I do suggest is that since he is interested in pre-1970
music, Joe should broaden his list of gurus. "The Gramophone Jazz Good
CD Guides" are very reliable. And Tom Piazza's "Guide to Classic
Recorded Jazz" is very useful (over the top on Parker, but who isn't?)
But pre-1970 (actually, about 1967) there isn't a lot of disagreement
about what jazz records are most worthy of your attention -- later, of
course, is a different matter.

My other comment is: I like Milo's suggestion of more George
Coleman. One thing to keep an eye out for is Coleman's 1991 album, "My
Horns of Plenty."

Christgau:

Willis and Firestone met in NY Radical Women but led Redstockings,
insofar as "led" meant anything in those days. My memory is that for
the two of them (and third "leader" Kathie Sarachild, who now owns the
franchise--you could look it up--but according to Alice Echols's
Daring to Be Bad moved to Gainesville early in the game) it functioned
three-four months on the outside, conceivably six, but by then the
women who thought anyone smarter than them was guilty of "classism"
were on the rampage. That was the best thing about Faludi's piece as
far as I'm concerned. Faludi was criminally irresponsible about
schizophrenia, a mental disorder with a clear somatic cause that
afflcted Firestone at least as much as sexism--there used to be a
YouTube video about her hoarding you might check out. Having sat
listening to records in the living room while Ellen and Shulie talked
for hours on the phone in the bedroom, it's my guess that Shulie got
more from Willis than v[ice]v[ersa], but I am prejudiced. Shulie had
probably read more Marx and Engels. Ellen had no use for Adorno when I
knew her but could have changed her mind in her much longer Aronowitz
period. Probably not, though--Aronowitz reported at her funeral that
she didn't really read much theory, preferred Victorian novels. I
recently reread her Marcuse obituary in her first collection and
recommend it. It's a pan.

Hamilton:

Thanks, Xgau, for that emendation of my radicals-comparison (btw, I
wouldn't trade Willis for Adorno, no way). I keep a time-line for
students of Willis' activities during the late 60s-late 70s period,
and this will inform it. I had wished that a Willis-planned book on
the radical Freudians Goodman/Marcuse/Reich had at least reached a
stage where we might see some of it, but Aronowitz's remarks don't
make that sound too hopeful.

Christgau:

My understanding, as I recall from public rather than private
sources, is that early chapters of Ellen's book were completed--maybe
she softened on HM, that obit was pre-Aronowitz as I calculate (I
don't really know when that relationship began) and it was Aronowitz
who introduced us both to Marcuse in 1966. Her daughter Nona's working
on an omnibus that I suppose may include some of that stuff. Nona
maintains an Ellen Willis website of some sort that I assume you're
aware of.

Several things: I don't get Faludi's "criminal irresponsibility"
re Firestone's schizophrenia. Maybe he knows something clinical that
Faludi missed? He clearly knew Firestone, but mostly through Willis,
which means probably not much after 1973 or so. I've long been partial
to Bateson's "double-bind theory of schizophrenia," since that seemed
to explain me when I was so diagnosed, but if schizophrenia has to be
a long-term degenerative chemical imbalance then clearly I never was.
On the other hand, Firestone seems to have had more than her share
of double-binds.

Willis and Christgau were lovers in the early 1970s, maybe a bit
earlier, and had a complicated intellectual relationship I don't know
much about, mostly because I've never found Willis very interesting.
(I've read little of her early writings on rock; mostly scattered
pieces in the Voice on feminism. I'm also familiar with an
exchange between Laura Tillem and Willis on Zionism, and I'm aware
that Willis was a post-9/11 hawk -- as was Christgau.)

Christgau married Carola Dibbell shortly before I started working
with him. Willis married Stanley Aronowitz, a lefty sociologist I met
once when Paul Piccone invited him to St. Louis for a lecture, probably
about the same time. (I met Willis once, in the Catskills, just a bare
introduction.) Could be that I underestimate Willis -- Hamilton no
doubt has read her more closely. I don't, by the way, have any real
commitment to Marcuse. I've read a lot of Adorno and Benjamin, but
not much Marcuse -- I blew off Piccone's assignment to read Reason
and Revolution, and never did more than skim One Dimensional
Man, nor did I ever pay much attention to what anyone had to say
about Freud.

Recycled Goods (108): May, 2013

Expert Comments

Christgau gave *** to the 1969 Miles Davis bootleg 3-CD box, the
same grade I originally wrote down before I had second thoughts and
nudged it up to A-, but he also noted, "There are probably 30-40
Miles albums I'd rather play." Joe Yanosik, predictably (Bob later
estimated the chances at 95-98%), asked for the list -- at least
for the pre-CG years, which would have to had provided 20 or so
albums on top of those in the CG reviews. Milo Miles compiled such
a list, hitting 20 by 1963's My Funny Valentine. I have a
bunch of those down in the B+ range, and don't even recognize some
(Blue Haze? Blue Moods? By any chance are those the
1952-54 Blue Notes I don't have? I know them simply as Volume
1 and Volume 2.) So I wound up writing:

I originally had the Miles Davis '69 bootleg at *** before nudging
it up to A- (in fact, just found the old grade still in my
database). It's very close to the line, and I gave it a bit of a bump
for historical interest: it's one of the most avant-oriented records
Davis ever did, and despite Holland they weren't really all that good
at it -- gives it an air of failure, not that there isn't an intrinsic
interest in listening to Shorter try to channel Ayler.

It's so close to the line I can take everything I have rated A- or
better as "albums I'd rather play" and count them up, in which case I
get 24 titles (with 32 cds) -- a lot of early stuff drops out from
Milo's list (and I don't have the Blackhawks) plus (and there's a lot
of redundancy here) I have eight boxes for another 47 cds. So Bob's
30-40 number is in the right ballpark.

BTW, average Jazz Prospecting yesterday; big Recycled Goods
tonight, plus if you follow the links more on that Spin 1960s list
feature. Not linked, but not that difficult to find, is a y1965 file
that isn't ranked but follows up on your last big poll -- had I had it
earlier, I might have voted.

Chris Monsen:

I reviewed the Miles album above to the equivalent of an A- for a
Norwegian daily earlier this spring. I stand by that grade. I enjoy
following the tentative steps ahead as well as the ruckus (though the
poor sound on the last disc is no plus), and -- like our host -- have
rarely found Corea more tolerable.

As for my personal take on the 30-40 bracket, let's try an
experiment:

Music Week/Jazz Prospecting

Not sure how the huge rated bump happened, but the Rhapsody work
doesn't stop with this coming week's rather robust Recycled Goods.
Losing a bit of ground on Jazz Prospecting, but also pulled a couple
old things out of the queue: the Zingaro was literally under a pile
of papers on my desk, something I was vaguely aware of having missed.
The old Moffett album was in the wrong queue, and being an advance
with no spine was impossible to see without rifling through the
discs. Also note two high-B+ piano records (Caine and Taborn).

Clipper Anderson: Ballad of the Sad Young Men (2008-10
[2013], Origin): Bassist, originally from Montana, looks like he's
based in Spokane after various stretches in Portland and Seattle.
Third album, if you count an Xmas with singer Greta Matassa's name
first, plus thirty or so side credits, notably with fellow Montanan
Jack Walrath. Anderson sings here, moldy standards done in the old
Sinatra mold, except that he's not Sinatra, and Darin Clendenon's
piano trio doesn't pack much punch.
B

Lary Barilleau & the Latin Jazz Collective: Carmen's
Mambo (2009-10 [2013], OA2): Conga player, b. 1958 in
Seattle, still based there, first album as far as I can tell,
cut in two sessions, with trombonist Doug Beavers the only other
musicians straddling both.
B

Michael Bates/Samuel Blaser Quintet: One From None
(2011 [2013], Fresh Sound New Talent): Bassist and trombone, leaders
because they do the writing, 5-3 in favor of Bates if you're counting.
Each as 3-5 records already, solid work, as is this. Band includes
Michael Blake (sax), Russ Lossing (keybs), and Jeff Davis (drums).
B+(***)

Geof Bradfield: Melba! (2012 [2013], Origin): Tenor
saxophonist (also credited with soprano sax and bass clarinet here),
fourth album since 2003, a tribute to trombonist and big band arranger
Melba Liston (noting also that two songs are named after band leaders
she worked for: Dizzy Gillespie and Randy Weston). Septet includes
two brass (trumpet and trombone), Jeff Parker on guitar, and Ryan
Cohan on piano, with Bradfield the sole reed player. The arrangements
swing, the horns slide. Ends with a brief Maggie Burrell vocal.
B+(***)

Cactus Truck with Jeb Bishop and Roy Campbell: Live in USA
(2012 [2013], Tractata): Dutch sax-guitar-drums trio, guitarist Jasper
Stadhouders also playing some bass; has a previous album, which got them
this US tour, attracting trombonist Bishop and trumpeter Campbell to join
in the mayhem. Three sets packed into one long CD, all but the tail end
flat-out noisy, something I've never enjoyed unless I managed to find
some coherent strand to organize the chaos around. No evidence of that
here.
B-

Uri Caine/Han Bennink: Sonic Boom (2010 [2013], 816
Music): Piano-drums duet, going by the order on the spine instead of
the front cover. Recorded on the drummer's home ground -- "live at the
Bimhuis" -- with Bennink's artwork both inside and out. Looks like
joint improvs aside from "'Round Midnight," which isn't the only debt
to Monk. The drummer is especially superb, and Caine gets hotter and
harder as he learns the ropes.
B+(***)

Tommy Flanagan/Jaki Byard: The Magic of 2: Live at Keystone
Korner (1982 [2013], Resonance): Two major pianists, live,
start out with duets on standards (first three: Charlie Parker, Cole
Porter, Duke Ellington), later on alternating solos. Bright and
tinkly, Flanagan seems more at home with the material.
B+(*)

Nick Fraser: Towns and Villages (2012 [2013], Barnyard):
Drummer, based in Toronto, has at least one previous album under his own
name, several as Drumheller, a dozen or so side credits. Quartet, modeled
loosely on Ornette Coleman's recent two-bass quartet, this one with Rob
Clutton on double bass and Andrew Downing on cello. They provide an ever
shifting substrate for the horn: Tony Malaby on tenor (and soprano) sax
gives a bravo performance, one of his finest ever.
A-

The Bill Horvitz Expanded Band: The Long Walk (2011
[2013], Big Door Prize): Guitarist, has a handful of albums since 1997;
wrote this for his late brother Phil Horvitz (1960-2005), performed
by a 17-piece band including a lot of orchestral instruments (oboe,
bassoon, French horn, tuba, violin, cello) -- mostly musicians I
recognize. Interesting bits here and there. Can't find anything that
suggests that pianist Wayne Horvitz is related, but he's in the band
here.
B+(*)

The Alex Levin Trio: Refraction (2012 [2013],
self-released): Pianist, from Philadelphia, based in New York, third
album, all standards, none remarkable but the appeal of hearing bits
of great songs floating up from the mainstream piano jazz matrix is
undeniable. Looks like they manage to make most of their living playing
private engagements (first time I've run across Gig Salad). That's a
niche they fit nicely.
B+(*)

María Márquez: Tonada (2012 [2013], Adventure Music):
Singer, from Venezuela, studied at Berklee, moved to San Francisco area;
fifth album since 1985, second on this label. Folkish arrangements,
mostly guitar, some accordion, although there are more upbeat pieces,
even some brass. Has a distinctive voice, slowly grows on you.
B+(*)

Charnett Moffett: The Bridge: Solo Bass Works (2011
[2013], Motéma): Bassist, has ten albums since 1987, many more side
credits. This is all solo, and rather than searching out the far out
sounds one can create with bass -- as, e.g., Peter Kowald and William
Parker have done on their solo albums -- Moffett sticks to basics,
picking and a little arco, and features a dozen proven melodies,
adds in eight originals, and keeps them all short and to the point.
B+(**)

Charnett Moffett: The Art of Improvisation (2009,
Motéma): Checking on his new record, I noticed that I had never
rated this old one, which I only got an advance promo of and file
it in a queue that I almost never look at -- a risk that wouldn't
have happened had they sent me a final copy. (Actually, this is
two records back; never got the intervening Treasure in
any shape or form.) Don't have the credits, so I don't know how
chores were split up between two guitarists and three drummers,
or which bass Moffett plays where -- my impression is that the
fretless bass guitar gets a workout here. All originals, except
for a Langston Hughes poem spoken by Angela Moffett and a warbly
"Star Spangled Banner"; one more vocal is by Yungchen Lhamo --
no clue what the language is. The bass is always prominent, driving
the groove, incorporating the world, and elaborating on it.
B+(***) [advance]

Craig Taborn Trio: Chants (2012 [2013], ECM):
Pianist, from Minneapolis; cut an early album for DIW in 1994,
two "Blue Series" albums that established his reputation as one
of the few distinctive electric keyb players in jazz, a couple
avant exercises on European labels (Clean Feed and ILK), and a
very well received acoustic solo for ECM. This trio, with Thomas
Morgan and Gerald Cleaver, should be his crowning success, but
I keep coming up a bit short with it.
B+(***)

Rich Thompson: Less Is More (2012 [2013], Origin):
Drummer, third album, basically a hard bop quintet, with Gary Versace
in piano and organ, the two horns Terrell Stafford and Doug Stone.
One original, the title cut (although bassist Jeff Campbell also
kicks in one), two Rodgers & Hart covers, most of the rest from
a who's who of jazz in the 1960s (Kenny Dorham, Ornette Coleman,
Wayne Shorter, Joe Henderson).
B+(*)

Carlos Alves "Zingaro"/Jean Luc Cappozzo/Jerome Bourdellon/Nicolas
Lelievre: Live at Total Meeting (2010 [2012], NoBusiness):
Violin, trumpet/bugle, flutes/bass clarinet, percussion, respectively,
a prickly combination. Zingaro, b. 1948 in Portugal, came out of the
postclassical avant-garde with a long discography. Cappozzo has a few
albums, including one with Herb Robertson called Passing the Torch.
Don't know the others, but the drummer is terrific, someone to watch
out for. Three long improv pieces, difficult but dazzling, kept a smile
on my face all the way through.
A-

Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:

Rodrigo Amado Motion Trio + Jeb Bishop: The Flame Alphabet (Not Two)

Anomonous (Prom Night)

Dieuf-Dieul de Thiès: Aw Sa Yone Vol. 1 (Teranga Beat)

Marko Djordjevic & Sveti: Something Beautiful 1709-2110 (Goalkeeper)

Satoko Fujii Ma-Do: Time Stands Still (Not Two)

Satoko Fujii New Trio: Spring Storm (Libra)

Trilok Gurtu: Spellbound (Sunnyside)

Harifinso: Bollywood Inspired Film Music From Hausa Nigeria (Sahel Sounds)

Weekend Roundup

Didn't squirrel away any links last week, but came up with a few
anyway.

Ed Kilgore: America Haters: A recent
poll found that 29% of Americans agree with the statement, "In the next
few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect out
liberties." The poll also found that 25 percent of voters "believe the
American public is being lied to about the Sandy Hook elementary school
shooting 'in order to advance a political agenda.'" The NRA had a convention
last week where the incoming president called for a "culture war" but at
least they stopped short of adopting a new slogan like, "Guns: they're
not just for self-defense any more."

Why is revolutionary rhetoric becoming so routine these days? Some of it
stems from the kind of "constitutional conservatism" that raises every
political or policy dispute to a question of basic patriotism or even
obedience to Almighty God. But a big part of it can also be attributed
to cynical opportunists who manipulate those fearful (usually without
much cause) of tyranny for their own very conventional ends -- usually
power and money.

Wherever you think it's coming from, it needs to stop, and if it
can't stop, it must be made disreputable as part of ordinary partisan
politics.

At a minimum, those who toy with the idea of overthrowing our government
to stop Obamacare or prevent gun regulation need to stand up to the charge
that they hate America. It will make them crazy to hear it, but it's the
truth.

This puts several observations together. One is that nearly everything
conservatives put forward these days is objectively damaging to the lives
and welfare of large segments of the American public. Austerity is a good
example: it directly hurts everyone the government had previously attempted
to help, plus it drags down the economy weakening the labor market -- i.e.,
the job security and prospects of everyone who works for a living. Another
observation is that many of the people who support conservatives clearly
do hate large segments of the American people. Add those up and you have
to wonder whether conservative policies aren't just foolishly misguided
but deliberately malevolent. And since then intend to hurt some Americans,
how many targets does it take to add up to hating America?

In today's economy, which is dominated by high finance, small debtors
and small creditors are on the same side of a larger class divide. The
economic prospects of working families are sandbagged by the mortgage
debt overhang. Meanwhile, retirees can't get decent returns on their
investments because central banks have cut interest rates to historic
lows to prevent the crisis from deepening. Yet the paydays of hedge
fund managers and of executives of large banks that only yesterday
were given debt relief by the government are bigger than ever. And
corporate executives and their private equity affiliates can shed
debts using the bankruptcy code and then sail merrily on.

Exaggerated worries about public debt are a staple of conservative
rhetoric in good times and bad. Many misguided critics preached austerity
even during the Great Depression. As banks, factories and farms were
failing in a cumulative economic collapse, Andrew Mellon, one of
America's richest men and Treasury secretary from 1921 to 1932,
famously advised President Hoover to "liquidate labor, liquidate
stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate . . .
it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living
and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more
moral life." The sentiments, which today sound ludicrous against the
history of the Depression, are not so different from those being
solemnly expressed by the U.S. austerity lobby or the German Bundesbank.
[ . . . ]

The combination of these two trends -- declining real wages and
inflated asset prices -- led the American middle class to use debt as
a substitute for income. People lacked adequate earnings but felt
wealthier. A generation of Americans grew accustomed to borrowing
against their homes to finance consumption, and banks were more than
happy to be their enablers. In my generation, second mortgages were
considered highly risky for homeowners. The financial industry
rebranded them as home equity loans, and they became ubiquitous.
Third mortgages, even riskier, were marketed as "home equity lines
of credit."

State legislatures, meanwhile, paid for tax cuts by reducing
funding for public universities. To make up the difference, they
raised tuition. Federal policy increasingly substituted loans for
grants. In 1980, federal Pell grants covered 77 percent of the cost
of attending a public university. By 2012, this was down to 36
percent. Nominally public state universities are now only 20 percent
funded by legislatures, and their tuition has trebled since 1989.
By the end of 2011, the average student debt was $25,250. In mid-2012,
total outstanding student loan debt passed a trillion dollars, leaving
recent graduates weighed down with debt before their economic lives
even began. This borrowing is anything but frivolous. Students without
affluent parents have little alternative to these debts if they want
college degrees. But as monthly payments crowd out other consumer
spending, the macroeconomic effect is to add one more drag to the
recovery.

Had Congress faced the consequences head-on, it is hard to imagine
a deliberate policy decision to sandbag the life prospects of the next
generation. But this is what legislators at both the federal and state
levels, in effect, did by stealth. They cut taxes on well-off Americans
and increased student debts of the non-wealthy young to make up the
difference. The real debt crisis is precisely the opposite of the one
in the dominant narrative: efficient public investments were cut,
imposing inefficient private debts on those who could least afford
to carry them.

The 1929 and 2008 crashes are more similar than most people recognize:
if you look at charts of economic output, they start at almost the same
trajectory and spread equally fast throughout the world. The difference
is that the latter crash was arrested in early 2009, the result of three
things: a much larger public sector which was (at least initially) free
from the crash mentality; automatic stabilizers like unemployment
insurance and welfare; and extraordinary government intervention to
prop up failing banks. Perversely, since so much of the recovery was
pushed through the banking system, the rich were the first satisfied
by the recovery, and they celebrated by engineering an economic pogrom
against the middle class: they used the crisis to depress the labor
market, and they lobbied for more austere government to cut services
and put further pressure on wages. Consequently, the human costs of
the current recession rival the 1930s -- the big stories of the last
few weeks concern the number of long-term unemployed and the stigma
against them, and a sudden increase in the suicide rate of Boomers --
but there is scarcely any viable political effort to help out. To me,
the most striking difference between Obama and FDR was that the latter
was pre-occupied with keeping both wages and prices up, whereas Obama
doesn't seem to grasp that there is even an issue here.

More generally, a significant body of international-relations scholarship
suggests that not only can outside intervention in humanitarian emergencies
in places like Rwanda not ameliorate the situation -- it can actually make
things worse. Even simply dispensing aid can prolong suffering, in what the
former Doctors Without Borders leader Fiona Terry calls "the paradox of
humanitarian action."

Why are humanitarian interventions so difficult? Kuperman theorizes that
when rebels are assisted by outside forces, they are unintentionally
encouraged to become more reckless in fighting a regime or provoking it,
resist negotiations, and expand their ambitions. Intervention can thereby
produce a perverse situation of prolonging a conflict that results in more
deaths. He calls this the "moral hazard of humanitarian intervention."
Even the expectation or the mistaken belief of outside support can
encourage rebels to continue fighting or resist settlements.

Another real reason is that military interventions in other countries
is a bad habit that the United States sorely needs to break. The reason
is not just because it doesn't work out very well -- Afghanistan and Iraq
are recent examples, but you can go back to 1898 and find more examples
in Cuba and the Philippines, and most of the cases in between (especially
including CIA operations) are more/less as unambiguous. But even if we
(or, say, a more appropriate body, like the UN) could push a button and
magically bring the conflict to a close, ask yourself what that solution
would look like. It wouldn't be to tilt the arms balance so the rebels
could take over, since doing that would only create a new regime at war
attempting to suppress yet another segment of the Syrian public. No, such
a solution would be to arrange a ceasefire, an amnesty, and a democratic
path forward with sufficient minority protections. I don't know whether
Obama has tried to do that, but many decades of hostilities between the
US and Syria have resulted in the US having very little leverage there.
(Egypt, for instance, was a different case: the US had a longterm military
alliance there which helped to ease Mubarak from office.) Maybe Russia,
China, and Iran could have more influence on the Assad regime, but the
US doesn't have a lot of influence with them either.

Smith goes on to write:

The humanitarian impulse is a noble one, spurred by good intentions.
But good intentions, even if they don't pave the road to hell, can
sometimes take us a good way there.

I would caution, though, that not every "humanitarian impulse" is
a noble one. Individuals, perhaps, but nations rarely practice foreign
policy to attain nobility. They usually have some sort of interest or
agenda, and one should be especially suspicious of a nation that claims
to be the advocate and defender of free markets, since the only acts
expected in the market are ones that advance self-interests.

Ben White: Sidelining Palestinians in Israel Will Doom Prospects for
Peace: Headline's a bit off as there are no "prospects for peace,"
but the real point to draw here is that the longer Israel's occupation
of the West Bank and Gaza continues, the more the brutality Israelis --
both the IDF and settlers often acting on their own -- is reflected
back on the second-class citizens of Israel.

In mid-April, the United States state department published its annual
human rights review -- and the country report for Israel makes for
interesting reading. An ally praised in public as the embodiment of
liberal democratic values in a "tough neighbourhood" is described as
practising "institutional discrimination" against its own Palestinian
citizens (the so-called Israeli Arabs).

Even in a far-from-comprehensive summary of Israel's systematic
racism, the report notes discrimination in the education system, the
land regime and housing, and the legal restrictions on a Palestinian
from the West Bank or Gaza living with his or her spouse in Israel.
[ . . . ]

But it is not just discrimination and segregation that raise concerns.
There are those in Israel who would like to be rid of Palestinian citizens
altogether -- and see an opportunity to do so in the context of the "peace
process."

Responding to recent protests by Palestinian citizens to mark their
expulsion in 1948, the former foreign minister and current chair of the
Knesset foreign affairs and defence committee, Avigdor Lieberman, called
the Nakba commemoration events proof that "any arrangement with the
Palestinians must include Israeli Arabs as well".